Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Non-Graduate Teachers

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the college of education principals on his policy that teacher training provision will be made for male non-graduates in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): None, Sir. I understand that the college of education principals welcome the decision to admit men to the three-year course for primary school teachers.

Mr. Eadie: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, is it not true to say that the college principals have shown a remarkable consistency in this advocacy of non-graduate male teachers?

Mr. Millan: As I have said, the college of education principals have welcomed this decision, and we are making further places available at the colleges of education to cater for the men who will be coming into them.

Mr. Brewis: How many male non-graduates does the Under-Secretary expect to come forward?

Mr. Millan: It is rather difficult at this time to give a firm estimate. One thinks that, potentially, there might be about 400 a year, but one would not expect that to happen in 1967. Again it is difficult to estimate firmly, but we might have about 200 coming forward then. Certainly we hope for that.

Highlands and Islands Development Board (Report)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Highlands and Islands Development

Board will publish an annual report; and when the first report will be published.

The Minister of State for Scotland (Mr. George Willis): I hope that the Board's first report, covering the period from 1st November, 1965, to 31st December, 1966, will be published reasonably early in 1967, but I cannot as yet give a definite date.

Mr. Mackenzie: In view of the great interest in the work of the Board and its importance to the Highlands of Scotland, would the Minister be prepared to grant a debate on the first annual report in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Willis: That is not for me. That is really a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Noble: Will the Minister of State ask the Board if it can include in its report not only the money which the Government have put into the Highlands, but what by increased taxation they have taken out?

Mr. Willis: That is not the Board's responsibility, of course. Its responsibility is for the exercise of its own powers in the Highlands.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister be able to say whether or not a list of companies which have received financial assistance from the Board will be a part of the first report?

Mr. Willis: I cannot say whether it will or not, but I should have thought not. One does not usually publish lists of companies receiving financial assistance from the Government.

Gaelic Language

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the decision of district councils in the Western Isles to give Gaelic equal validity with English in the conduct of business, and of the need for the status of the native language of Scotland to be clarified, if he will set up a commission to look into this matter.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I do not think that the appointment of a commission would be justified.

Mr. Mackenzie: As there is so much evidence of growing interest in the language, would the Secretary of State consider looking at this further or, by some other means, giving further incentive to those who are doing so much for the future of the language?

Mr. Ross: I welcome the indication from the hon. Gentleman's Question that there is growing interest. He will be aware that, following the meeting which I had with the deputation from An Comunn, we have already announced that we shall be doubling the grant for the year 1967 from £500 to £1,000.

Unemployment

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to prevent unemployment exceeding 100,000.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is now taking to bring unemployment in Scotland within the confines of the national average.

Mr. Ross: I would refer hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 9th November [Vol. 735, c. 1281]. Since then substantial increases in retraining facilities and temporary increases in investment grants have been announced.

Mr. Hamling: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when unemployment in Scotland last reached the figure of 100,000 in the month of December?

Mr. Ross: It was in 1962, but my hon. Friend will be aware that that was only the start of a six-month period when in no month did it go below 100,000.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend confident that these measures will bring unemployment in Scotland into line with his statement in July of this year?

Mr. Ross: I am confident that, as a result of what we are doing in respect of the long-term economic situation in Scotland, in time we shall be able to improve the position considerably. The indications that we have of the incidence of unemployment throughout the country, bearing in mind its relationship with Scotland, gives us some reason to think that already a certain amount of the

balance has been redressed as a result of the work of the past two or three years—not just by this party, but by the others as well—in the diversification and modernisation of Scottish industry.

Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that everyone on both sides of the House is most anxious to see this position improved, and does not he agree that what he has told us today—and I am sure that there are other things that he is doing—is a very disappointing Answer to the Question in view of the great anxiety all over Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I think that the problems in relation to the present situation are related to the weakness of the country, and I think also that the right hon. Gentleman should be the last one to get up and talk about this, bearing in mind for how long, and for what continuous period, his party had control of the whole situation.

Educational and Recreational Projects (The Highlands)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Highland Development Board on educational and recreational projects in the Highlands.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has not had any discussions with the Board about specific educational and recreational projects. The Board has, however, given him its views on secondary education in the Highlands and Islands, and these are being carefully considered in relation to proposals of the Highland education authorities.

Mr. Hamling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my interest in this matter arises from the fact that one of the schools in my constituency has a project in Argyllshire, and will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend about this project?

Mr. Millan: I am very well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this. I think he knows that this has been discussed at quite considerable length, but I also think he knows that the problem is principally one for the Department for Education and Science and not for my right hon. Friend.

Cadco Report

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish a full report of his findings on the Cadco affair.

Mr. Ross: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers I gave him on 30th November—[Vol. 737, c. 106.] and 14th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 85.].

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I shall have a few caustic comments to make on that reply within the hour?

Mr. Ross: It would surprise me if my hon. Friend did not have caustic remarks to make, but I am not going to anticipate the reply to those comments.

Housing

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses he estimates will be completed in 1966.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): I cannot give a precise figure.

Mr. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that in March of this year, only nine months ago, the Government and all hon. Gentlemen opposite were able to say almost precisely that the figure of 40,000 would certainly be exceeded? How can the hon. Gentleman justify that situation when, during the last three months, the number of unemployed building workers in Scotland has risen by more than 3,000?

Dr. Mabon: There are nine days to go to the end of the year, since no self-respecting person in Scotland works on Hogmanay, and it would be foolish to try to give a precise figure at this stage. Public sector completions are reported to us monthly. Private sector completions are reported to us quarterly. The last return which we received was in September. I have discussed this with the builders, and in future they will report monthly. I welcome this, because we shall then be in a better position to give these figures earlier.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend assure us that he is not depending on Santa Claus?

Dr. Mabon: No, Sir.

Mr. G. Campbell: With only nine days to go, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figure of 40,000, Which was given in the Scottish Labour Party election manifesto, Election Special, will be reached?

Dr. Mabon: We shall certainly beat ten years of Conservative rule.

Scottish Economic Planning Board

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific proposals for action he has received from the Scottish Economic Planning Board since it was established.

Mr. Ross: The Board's main function is to co-ordinate the work of the Government Departments concerned with the formulation and execution of plans and proposals for the development of the Scottish economy. Much of the Board's work is reflected in the detailed schemes contained in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, but the Board has also been involved in many other questions on which I and the Scottish Economic Planning Council have required its advice.

Mr. Taylor: My Question asked whether any specific proposals had been made. Has the Board made any specific proposals? If not, will the House be advised if specific proposals come forward?

Mr. Ross: The purpose of the Economic Planning Council, as distinct from the Planning Board, has been explained time and again in the House. The Board consists mainly of civil servants representing their own Departments, who meet, who advise, and who also accept advice from the Secretary of State through the Planning Council, and these Departments go on in relation to the execution of these plans.

Mr. Noble: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a little odd that he cannot say whether or not specific proposals are being made by these people? They always were by the development group in the old days. I see no reason why these distinguished civil servants sitting and working together should not draw up plans.

Mr. Ross: Of course they do, in relation to transport, labour and, as I announced in answer to a previous Question, in relation to retraining facilities. These plans are discussed, agreement is reached and then the work is carried out. It is seen in the actual work of the Scottish Office and the other Departments.

Universities (Student Failure)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of male students failed to complete their courses at Scotland's universities in each of the last three years.

Mr. Millan: This information is not available; the latest information on student failure for British universities as a whole is given in paragraphs 80–85 of the Report on University Development 1957 to 1962, Cmnd. 2247.

Mr. Hunter: I am sorry that my hon. Friend cannot give this information. Would not he agree that had the non-graduate teaching courses for men, as now proposed by my right hon. Friend, been in operation for the previous months, this would have helped to improve teacher supply in Scotland, particularly when we think of the failures in universities who might have opted for these courses?

Mr. Millan: Yes, Sir, but I would not like to think that the people who are to come into the colleges of education will be looked on merely as failed university students. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question that these new proposals will improve teacher supply.

Road Accidents

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to reduce the number of road accidents in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: New and improved roads, traffic management, publicity and education are all helping to keep down the number of accidents. But care, courtesy and consideration by all road users can make the biggest contribution.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that the general grant apportionment for

road safety is no higher than that of last year? Would not he agree that, due to the appalling number of accidents in Scotland in recent weeks, some further consideration must be given to this question?

Dr. Mahon: I very much agree. This is why my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Transport have set up the National Road Safety Advisory Council In his Question my hon. Friend is emphasising the point that it is the desire of local authorities to push ahead with this matter which determines the level of expenditure, and I hope that we can proceed further.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say whether the 50 miles per hour speed limit on certain roads in Scotland has had any effect?

Dr. Mahon: It is too early to make an assessment. The Road Research Laboratory is taking the figures, and we hope to discuss this issue with the Laboratory in the near future.

Mr. G. Campbell: Would not a restoration of the cuts in the Scottish road programme make a signal contribution in this direction?

Dr. Mabon: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman looks at this a little more closely, I think he will see that they were small and were not applied primarily for accident reasons but for economic ones.

Fee-paying Schools

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding fee-paying schools.

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will withdraw Exchequer grants from independent and grant-aided schools in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend regards education authority fee-paying and other selective schools as inconsistent with a system of comprehensive education and he has asked Edinburgh and Glasgow—the authorities mainly involved—to review the future organisation of such schools in that context.
So far as grant-aided schools are concerned, local authorities were asked, in Circular No. 600, to consult the governing bodies of these schools as to the part they


could play in a comprehensive system. Consideration of any wider question affecting the future of these schools would not be appropriate at this stage.
As regards independent schools, we are in the first instance awaiting the report of the Public Schools Commission. Independent schools in Scotland do not receive Exchequer grants.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend confirm that what he expects in the pattern of education which is emerging is that these schools will cease and will disappear?

Mr. Millan: As I have said, we regard this as inconsistent with a comprehensive reorganisation. We are now awaiting the proposals of the two authorities which I have mentioned.

Mr. Dewar: As my hon. Friend has given what is obviously a rather long-term picture, will he consider in the short-term the introduction of responsibilities in return for the considerable State aid given to grant-aided schools, similar to those contained in the Direct Grant School Regulations, 1959, as subsequently amended, which apply in England?

Mr. Millan: I think that the background and circumstances of grant-aided schools in Scotland are rather different from the situation in England. As I have said, these wider issues—and what my hon. Friend has just outlined is a wider issue—are not appropriate to be dealt with at this stage.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the Minister aware that he has just made a very grave statement? Would he resist all attempts to remove parental freedom of choice in education?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that it is a question of parental freedom of choice. It is a question of fee-paying in corporation schools, which incidentally does not apply to schools south of the Border. So I would not take that to be a particularly valid argument for Scotland. For the vast majority of children in Scotland and in the vast majority of local authority areas, there is no question of fee-paying in corporation or local authority schools.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: What is the point of having local authorities at all if the Government are to give them no freedom about the pattern of education within their own areas?

Mr. Millan: Nothing which is being done by this Government with regard to the pattern of organisation is any different in principle from what had been done by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. We are still working under exactly the same legislation.

Scottish Special Housing Association

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to the Scottish Special Housing Association in relation to investment in areas of above-average unemployment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Association's future building programme is designed mainly to support industrial development. A substantial part of it will be in areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend realise that not only Government supporters view with great enthusiasm the expansion in the activities of the Scottish Special Housing Association which has been encouraged by the present Government? Do we have an assurance that every possible opportunity is taken to use the S.S.H.A. as an instrument of regional development according to certain priorities?

Dr. Mabon: Yes; I am quite convinced—so is my right hon. Friend—that this is so. This year we would hope that we can get more than 2,000 houses completed by the S.S.H.A. for the first time since 1960. In my hon. Friend's constituency and in the adjacent part of Midlothian we hope to start 1,850 houses in the next three years.

Houses for Sale (Central Scotland)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of houses for sale in central Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I have had three meetings with private house builders in Scotland, and a working party has been set up in conjunction with them with a view to increasing the number of houses built for sale.

Mr. Dalyell: When are we likely to have the results of this important Working Party?

Dr. Mahon: The Working Party has been in existence now for three months and reported to the builders and myself—that is, the full session of builders and myself—on 9th December. We propose to meet again when the Working Party finishes its Report. It is discussing primarily finance, land use and planning procedures.

Tourist Trade

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek power to enable him to encourage an increased number of people from England and Wales to spend their holidays in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not think that my right hon. Friend needs more powers. The Scottish Tourist Board has his full support in its work in this field and, as my right hon. Friend told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 30th November, the Scottish tourist industry will share in the benefits of the expanded home holidays campaign with the British Travel Association is mounting with the aid of a Government grant.

Mr. Wainwright: As the Government want people to spend their holidays within these shores, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the advertising of the beauties of Scotland is intensified? Would he also consider the question of improving the available accommodation? Would he also consider the question of the vast areas of land in Scotland that are reserved for private use just for a few days per year?

Dr. Mabon: I will certainly draw these matters to the attention of the Tourist Board, as well as giving the assurance that they will be noted by my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend should know that the work going on just now on all these matters, including market research—market research in England, primarily—is sustained by a Government grant of £25,000 each year for three years. We hope to get some results out of it which will lead us to a considerable change in policy regarding tourism in Scotland.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Under-Secretary take a look at the success of the Governments of the Republic of Eire

and of Northern Ireland in giving direct grants for the promotion of advertising for tourism in their respective countries? Should we not be doing the same in Scotland to attract more tourists?

Dr. Mabon: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, are considering these matters thoroughly. We have taken, and are taking, comparisons with other countries, including the Republic of Ireland, which, I agree, has a very good record of State support of tourism. We want to make decisions about this when the facts are quite clear and when the proposed action which should be taken is economically sensible.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would the Under-Secretary consult the management of British European Airways, a State-run airline, which spends all its money advertising trips to every part of Europe but nothing to Scotland?

Dr. Mahon: One of the main changes which was made under this Government in the Tourist Board by itself, with the endorsement of the Secretary of State, was to change it from those who were specifically disinterested—or not interested commercially—in tourism to what is in fact a manufacturers' co-operative. The airlines are now for the first time represented on the Scottish Tourist Board, and I am sure they will want to play their proper part in tourism in Scotland. This is a matter of education and persuasion which I think is going along very nicely.

Salmon and Trout Fishing

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek power to ensure that more salmon and trout fishing, at a reasonable charge, is made available in Scotland for visitors from England and Wales and from abroad.

Mr. Willis: Excellent fishing is already available to visitors at very reasonable charges in many places in Scotland, but my right hon. Friend is aware of the increasing demand for angling facilities, and he will bear this in mind when deciding what action to take on the Hunter Committee Report on Scottish salmon and trout fisheries.

Mr. Wainwright: In view of that Answer, will my hon. Gentleman give the assurance that he is satisfied in regard to the removal of pollution from Scottish rivers? Will he do more to ensure that Scottish rivers are stocked with trout and salmon? Will he ensure that the riparian owners do not put too great a restriction on people wanting to visit Scotland for fishing purposes?

Mr. Willis: We are concerned about the pollution of rivers, but the purification boards are doing a good job of work here, although there is a considerable amount more still to be done. On the question of riparian owners and trout fishing, I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows what the position is in Scotland regarding trout fishing. The position is that a person can fish for trout in Scotland without a licence. The riparian owner can take an interdict against him, but that is rather a long and tedious process.

Mr. Stodart: As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the Hunter Report, can he state what the state of consideration at the moment is? Two years ago he said that it was urgent. A year ago he said that it was very urgent. Is it now very, very, urgent?

Mr. Willis: It is still very urgent. There is a later Question on the Order Paper on this subject tabled by one of my hon. Friends. It would be more courteous to say more at that stage.

Elderly and Handicapped Persons

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request local authorities in Scotland to appoint only persons with nursing qualifications to take charge of homes for elderly and

CLASS OF POLICE


Year


Total
Men
Women
Additional
Accident
Assault


1961
…
…
358
347
9
2
298
60


1962
…
…
426
416
8
2
366
60


1963
…
…
413
403
8
2
357
56


1964
…
…
406
397
4
5
342
64


1965
…
…
442
432
8
2
366
76

Fire Brigade Equipment (Breathing Apparatus)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fire brigades in Scotland are not presently equipped with breathing apparatus; and whether

handicapped people when such qualified people are available.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir. The circumstances, such as the degree of frailty of the residents, vary so much that this is best left to local authorities' discretion.

Mr. Doig: Is not my hon. Friend aware that situations frequently arise in these places where nursing experience can be invaluable?

Mr. Millan: That is true. Each home cannot be compared exactly with every other home. Circumstances vary. This is a matter better left to local authorities. If they want to appoint somebody with a nursing qualification, they can do so; and many of them do so.

Police (Assaults and Accidents)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many policemen have been injured in Scotland during each of the last five years while on duty.

Mr. Willis: As the Answer contains a table of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Police Federation is very concerned about the increase in the number of assaults upon policemen recently? Is he aware further that many of these assaults could have resulted in murder, but fortunately did not so result? An inch either way would have meant the difference between superficial injury and death.

Mr. Willis: I am aware that there has been an increase in the number of assaults upon the police. We are naturally concerned about this.

Following is the table of figures:

he will take steps to remedy these deficiencies.

Mr. Willis: Every Scottish brigade is equipped with breathing apparatus, although it is not held at all fire stations.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that this apparatus is available to the smaller units, to avoid a situation like that which happened as a result of a fire about a month ago which tragically affected some of my constituents, when the Northern Fire Master had to comment on widespread Press reports that lives might have been saved if breathing apparatus had been available at one of these smaller stations?

Mr. Willis: I understand that, in the tragic circumstances of the fire at Stornoway, to which I think my hon. Friend is referring, it was the intense heat and collapse of the buildings which prevented firemen from gaining access and that the lack of breathing apparatus at that fire was not the cause of these deaths.

Land Use (Highlands)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board for improving land use in the Highlands of Scotland; and if he has approved them.

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend has not as yet received any proposals on this subject.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a most disappointing reply in view of the fact that the development of the land economy of the Highlands is central to any development of the Highlands, and that, for 50 years and more, all possible development of land has been hindered by absentee landlords?

Mr. Willis: Naturally, we realise the importance of the development of land, but it must be remembered that the Board has existed for only 14 months. Nevertheless, I understand that it has a number of developments under active consideration. It has already stated publicly that it is interested in land use and development, for instance in the Isle of Mull, the Strath of Kildonan and in Glencoe, and I have no doubt that other matters concerning land are under its consideration.

Mr. Buchan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the biggest single boost which he could give the Highlands would be to take land into public ownership? Until we break the rule of the Lairds north of

the Highlands line we will make no satisfactory land use there.

Mr. Willis: That may well he so. The Board wants to get on with the job in hand, and it is getting on with it in the manner I have indicated.

Mr. Noble: Before accepting his hon. Friend's suggestion, would the hon. Gentleman carefully consider the land which he and his right hon. Friend own and see how well that is run?

Mr. Willis: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is one of the last entitled to complain about the amount of land people own in Scotland. At least the land owned by my right hon. Friend is publicly owned.

Ambulance Service

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to improve the ambulance service in the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. Millan: The arrangements for providing ambulances in all parts of the country are reviewed frequently by the Joint Central Committee of the Scottish Ambulance Service. If my hon. Friend has any particular point I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, will he look at the cumbersome procedures for obtaining helicopter ambulance services in the remoter parts of the Highlands? Will he also consider whether or not the present system of sub-contracting the ambulance service to local operators is working adequately?

Mr. Millan: On the first point, I will look into the matter. On the second, there are occasional difficulties, but it is often necessary to work through subcontractors in remoter areas. There was a little difficulty in Thurso recently, as my hon. Friend knows, but that was put right—I hope to his satisfaction.

Brothels

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of premises in Edinburgh being used as brothels; how many prosecutions have taken place in the past two years; and what was the maximum sentence imposed.

Mr. Willis: The Edinburgh Police know of three houses under single management. There have been four prosecutions for brothel keeping in respect of these premises since the beginning of 1965. The biggest penalty imposed was a £40 fine.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with many of my constituents, who feel that the repetition of trifling fines for persistent offenders is tantamount to running a licensed brothel system, but without many of the advantages of supervisory safeguards? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Willis: Of course, the question of fines is essentially one for the courts, and it is not for me to comment on their decisions.

Loch Lomond Water Scheme

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent estimate of the dates for starting and for completing the Loch Lomond Water Scheme; and what changes in the estimated cost of the work have occurred in the past three years.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The start is being held up only by delay in obtaining the necessary powers. The work will take 2½ to 3 years to complete. The estimated cost in 1963 was £7·7 million to provide a supply of 50 million gallons a day, but the scheme has since been adjusted to provide up to 70 million gallons a day at a cost of about £9·8 million.

Earl of Dalkeith: In view of the many changes of circumstances since the scheme was first mooted, will the hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that he will not use dictatorial or undemocratic powers to compel those local authorities which have already made adequate provision for their needs for many years ahead to join in a subsidised scheme unless they expressly favour it?

Dr. Mahon: Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Government would dream of exercising dictatorial powers in any circumstances. I can give that as an absolute assurance. The Government, however, were committed in the Queen's Speech to introduce a Measure designed to reorganise water supplies in Scotland. Irrespective of that, there is no doubt

that the Government are looking to the Parliamentary procedure governing the Order to see what eventuates from it.

Mr. Wylie: Is it not the case that the figure of £9·8 million, which the hon. Gentleman gave, was the cost given at the inquiry in 1965? Does that mean that there has been no increase in cost in the intervening period or that the increase has not yet been calculated?

Dr. Mabon: I am advised that there is no marginal increase of such a nature as to give rise to other figures than those which I have given to the House. The hon. and learned Member probably has a point, and I shall look into it, but I am so advised at present. This scheme was first sponsored and costed—and endorsed by the previous Government—in 1963 and it is a matter of great urgency for the areas in Cumbernauld and Livingston in particular and for other parts of Scotland that water supplies are augmented as quickly as possible—indeed, if not in 1967, certainly in 1968 and 1969.

Doctors

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry into the reasons for the continuing decline in the number of doctors in general practice in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman afraid of such an inquiry, which would place a large burden of the responsibility on the Government's shoulders for the heavy burden of taxation on general practitioners and the position of the general practitioner service arising from the abolition of prescription charges? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend's statement that the trend would be reversed has been proved completely inaccurate and that the last quarter's figures were as bad as any under the present Government? What is he doing about it?

Mr. Millan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. The whole matter of recruitment to general practice has been exhaustively considered and has also been considered by the Review Body. The new system of remuneration now coming into operation will, we think, make a great improvement in the attractiveness of general practice. That is the


information which we get from the medical profession itself, which has welcomed the new system.

Fishing Industry (Subsidies)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to the future level of fishing subsidies in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: The subsidy for white fish vessels over 80 feet is required by Statute to be reduced annually by between 7½ and 12½per cent.; the subsidy for herring vessels and white fish vessels under 80 feet is reviewed annually in the light of operating results. The Government are, however, at present carrying out a review of policy, and I cannot indicate what changes, if any, will be made as a result.

Mr. Ellis: Can my hon. Friend give us some indication of when this review will be completed?

Mr. Willis: I am sorry; I cannot give my hon. Friend an indication of when it will be completed, but it should not be too long.

Mr. Grimond: What representations, if any, have been received from the smaller boat owners about the level of subsidies?

Mr. Willis: We received representations, of course, when the subsidies were considered. I can recall no representations received recently on the matter.

Mr. Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the heaviest burden of the latest fall in the subsidy rate was borne by the Scottish inshore fishing fleet, namely 33 per cent.? Is this not too high a drop compared to other ports of the fleet, and will he take steps to remedy the situation?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that it is the policy, as I have indicated, to review the subsidy annually, in the light of operating results. The inshore fleets have had two very good years, and it is the policy that, in good years, of course, the subsidy should be reduced.

Tayside Study Group

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Tayside Study Group will be appointed.

Mr. Ross: The Group held its first meeting yesterday.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will this group have any responsibility in respect of the transport needs of the Tayside area where the decision has been taken to close the Strathmore line? Many people are concerned to know what function the group will have in respect of this kind of problem.

Mr. Ross: If it had been in existence, it would have been consulted. I am sure that one of the advantages of these local area groups is that they will be able to inform us of the transport needs for promoting the economic life of the area.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is intended to be the northern limit of the area of study of this Tayside group?

Mr. Ross: It goes from Dundee to Perth. I know that there is much concern in relation to Aberdeen, but that area, which the hon. Member represents, has its own area group. I see no conflict between the two areas, and I think that the best way to proceed is along these lines.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Tayside group had already been set up before the decision on the Strathmore line was announced and, therefore, could have been consulted and should have been consulted?

Mr. Ross: I said the first meeting was yesterday.

Life Sentence Prisoners (Release)

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners serving life sentences for convictions of murder have been released in the last two years; what were the periods of imprisonment served in each case; and how many were released contrary to the recommendation of the trial judge.

Mr. Ross: One life sentence prisoner was released last autumn after serving nine years. The trial judge was not available. The Lord Justice General expressed the view that the prisoner should be detained for a longer period.

Mr. Wylie: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the new climate set by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty)


Act it is more than ever important to have the closest regard to the views of the judiciary before taking administrative action in this field?

Mr. Ross: This is not administrative action. This is the statutory obligation of the Secretary of State. I should not like anyone to think that any decision in respect of this is taken by any civil servant. It is taken by the Secretary of State. I should not like anyone to assume that because in this case I did not agree with the trial judge, that is always the situation. It would be quite wrong to jump to that conclusion.

Mr. Doig: Does the Secretary of State agree that releasing a person convicted of murder after nine years can cause very great anomalies, bearing in mind that people charged with lesser crimes, such as manslaughter and the mail train robbery, can get far longer sentences and may have to serve them?

Mr. Ross: I think that the mail train robbery aspect of this problem is slightly irrelevant. That was very exceptional indeed. But I, as Secretary of State, certainly take into account the question of sentencing in respect of more related crimes. This is one of the things which is taken into account.

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent it is a general practice in Scotland to release persons convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after a period of between eight and nine years; and if he is satisfied with this practice.

Mr. Ross: There is no such general practice. Each case is considered individually on principles that have been explained in the House on previous occasions. Release is on licence; and the person released is liable to recall, if necessary, as long as he lives.

Mr. Wylie: Although it may not be the general practice, is it not the case that in the ordinary way the release on licence of a person convicted of murder normally takes place after eight or nine years? If that is the case, is it not quite illogical that it should be so when the judiciary have expressed the view that in certain circumstances for the much lesser crime of culpable homicide a person convicted may be sentenced to 15 years imprison-

ment, of which ten years will normally be served?

Mr. Ross: It is very wrong, certainly in Scotland, where I have certain knowledge, to talk about what "normally" happens. The last Answer that I gave showed that one person had been released in two years. In the last six years, which covers three Secretaries of State—and I am sure that they all took the same responsible attitude as I take in this matter—the number of people released has been three. It is very wrong to start talking about general principles on that kind of basis. Each case is dealt with individually on its merits. It would be wrong to give the impression to anybody that automatically after a certain number of years anyone is released. As a matter of fact, there is certainly one case that would distort the average in relation to the last two years if we started to consider averages. There is one person in a Scottish prison who was sentenced to life imprisonment and who has been there for 11½ years.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State clear up the position and assure me that there is continuity of policy over the last few years and that the average sentence served in the late 1950's and early 1960's by persons convicted of murder and released on licence is very similar to that at the present time?

Mr. Ross: If anyone wishes to work on this average business—which I deplore, because it is misleading—the position is that at the present time such prisoners tend to be kept in longer.

Teacher Training

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that rates of grant are adequate for those entering teacher training under the special recruitment scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has no evidence that the current rates of grant under the Special Recruitment Scheme are inadequate, and he has no proposals at present for increasing them.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is not the hon. Member aware that men who have held responsible positions outside teaching and who have family commitments can suffer


financial hardship on entering teacher training? Does he not agree that it is most undesirable that this should happen at a time when there is a great need for good people to enter the teaching profession?

Mr. Millan: I do not agree with that. The grants are related to the circumstances of the prospective students. In the case of a married man with two children, for example, the grant might be £750 per year or it might be rather more, depending on age and other circumstances.

Mr. Buchan: Does not the Minister agree that there is a point of substance here, bearing in mind the need to recruit graduates from industry and commerce? Should he not consider paying another grant for the equivalent of the first year's salary that they would draw in teaching? Would he also look at other aspects of the scheme, particularly the imposition of the requirement of two "highers" for these people?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend's first suggestion has wide implications, because it would also have to be related to what happens to graduates who go to teacher training straight from university. It is a very big question. On the second point, we try to be as flexible and realistic as we can about initial qualifications, but it is not of any advantage to a prospective student to allow him in with qualifications which are seriously below standard, for the prospects then are that he will not be able to complete the course. We should not ask people to give up outside employment in those circumstances. We must strike a balance.

Mr. Noble: Does not the hon. Member think that if about £750 a year is the most that can be given, then the people we are likely to get from industry and other places who are suitable for this work are bound to suffer hardship because they will be making much more at the time in outside industry?

Mr. Millan: I did not say that £750 was the maximum. I quoted an instance and said that other people can get grants beyond that. The response to the special recruitment scheme last year was extremely good. We had more than

10,000 inquiries, and eventually 1,000 people seriously considered entry and 500 entered last year. The response to this year's publicity campaign has been equally good and we have already had several thousand inquiries.

Redeployment of Labour

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had regarding measures to assist the redeployment of labour in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Responsibility for administering the Government's policies affecting redeployment rests with a number of Ministers, notably my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I am naturally in close and regular consultation with him and other Ministers concerned.

Mr. Monro: Would the Secretary of State say how many people have actually been redeployed since July? Would he say whether they have moved to manufacturing industries or to service industries.

Mr. Ross: Not without notice.

Mr. Steel: How many retraining centres will be set up in Scotland outside the central belt?

Mr. Ross: I can give the hon. Gentleman the whole list. I think that it is about seven, and one is being built and one was announced last week. I am sorry that I could not give him the actual locations off the cuff.

Mr. Maclennan: In so far as redeployment has occurred out of areas largely dependent on service industries, has the Secretary of State had consultations with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the possible relationship of the Selective Employment Tax with this phenomenon?

Mr. Ross: I have assured my hon. Friend before that the question of the Selective Employment Tax and its effect in the first year is a subject that certainly closely concerns me.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have been urging a regional investigation of S.E.T. since May and for action to be taken


regionally in this matter? If the first year is to pass before the Government consider this, may not the effects of S.E.T. have gone too far, so that it will then be too late?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the present Government will not take any action too late. [Interruption.] The trouble with the former Conservative Government was that they did not take any action at all.

Police Force (Strength)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the net change in the strength of the police force over the last 12 months.

Mr. Willis: A decrease of 77 in the year ending on 31st October.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that when pay negotiations take place next year a substantial increase will have to be given if we are to have a net gain in strength?

Mr. Willis: That is a matter for the negotiations. I recognise the seriousness of losing police at the present time.

Doctors (Principals and Assistants)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of principals and assistants in general practice in October 1964, October 1965, and October 1966, respectively.

Mr. Millan: 2,790, 2,728, and 2,673, respectively. These figures exclude trainee assistants. The last figure is provisional.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those figures confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was saying a moment ago? Is he aware that this is a serious decline, that it reflects the high burden of taxation on doctors and the professional classes generally, and that it also reflects the Government's muddled priorities in the Health Service?

Mr. Millan: Any decline in the number of doctors in general practice is a serious matter, although the reasons for this decline are many, including the failure of previous Conservative Administrations to extend the medical schools

sufficiently. Indeed, at one time hon. Gentlemen opposite put the process of extending the medical schools in reverse. We are now paying the penalty for that.

Agriculture

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will now take to encourage the expansion of agricultural production.

Mr. Ross: This question will be fully considered at the forthcoming Annual Review in the light of all the relevant factors, including the requirements of the selective expansion programme.

Mr. MacArthur: That is not a very encouraging Answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that oats, potatoes, swedes, turnips, dairy cows, pigs, poultry and sugar beet are all substantially down this year and that income from livestock has fallen disastrously? Will he take urgent steps to restore the confidence of the farmers?

Mr. Ross: We have already taken steps in respect of those sections of the industry which have been hardest hit by recent events and conditions, in particular by giving the advance payment of 15s. per ewe to hill sheep farmers and by stating, in advance of the Annual Review, our intention to raise the middle band for pigs by 400,000. The hon. Gentleman may consider this to be a not particularly encouraging Answer, but it shows that the Government are anxious to tackle this problem, remembering that this is the time when all these products should be fully taken into account by the Government and the industry.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that is felt, especially in Ayrshire, about milk production, and will he give an indication of the position?

Mr. Ross: The position regarding milk production is that there has been a decline in the number of herds. However, the size of individual herds is increasing, and that has shown a further tendency towards concentration in dairy production.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)


gave—of eight commodities being down; and only two commodities are up—shows that the June census return is a contradiction unparalleled in the post-war years and shows the lack of confidence among the agricultural community in the present Administration?

Mr. Ross: That is quite wrong. I remember the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech in which he told us that he nearly joined a farmers' hunger march because of the activities of his hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the crisis of confidence in the hill and marginal section of farming, not only at the time of the next Review but immediately, so that something may be done to restore confidence, particularly if we are to enter the E.E.C.?

Mr. Ross: Not on this Question.

Mr. Stodart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that my maiden speech was not made on the subject of agriculture?

Mr. Ross: Perhaps I should say that the remarks I attributed to the hon. Gentleman were made by him in one of the many important speeches which he has made.

Emigration

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of net emigration from Scotland in the year to end June 1966, and of the proportion of emigrants going to England and overseas, respectively.

Mr. Ross: The estimated net emigration was 47,000, of which 22,000 was to the rest of the United Kingdom and 25,000 overseas.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of these appalling figures, would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, since the Labour Government came to power, the population of Scotland has begun to decline year by year? Will he look into this as a matter of great urgency and bear in mind these appalling figures when considering the level of unemployment, on which a strict watch must be kept?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will study these matters closely, he will appreciate that the first time when these figures rose above 40,000 was in 1963–64. Thereafter they rose even higher, and in 1964–65, when the Conservative Government were in power—I mention that in case the hon. Gentleman is anxious to attach responsibility for this trend—they rose to more than 43,000. The hon. Gentleman should not blame us for any calamitous rises. I am concerned, as every Scot should be, to arrest this trend. We used to talk about the drift to the South. The figure of 22,000 is a fairly stable one today. I am more concerned with overseas emigration and about what we can do to prevent that. I suggest that only by proceeding along the right long-term lines—by providing the right social facilities, the right housing, the right industry and so on—will we solve this problem.

Hill Cow Subsidy

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many instances in 1964, 1965, and 1966 applications by farmers in Scotland for the hill cow subsidy have been refused solely on the ground that application was not submitted by 30th June.

Mr. Willis: The numbers in these three years were 20, 18 and 7, respectively.

Mr. Baker: Will not the Minister of State agree that some of the trouble here is due to the change either in tenancy or ownership of the holding concerned, and will he take administrative steps to make sure that an incoming tenant or occupier is informed of the procedure, or sent the correct form automatically with the change in tenancy or ownership?

Mr. Willis: This matter was looked at at the beginning of the year when certain modifications were made in the payment of these subsidies which have helped to reduce the number of those not eligible.

Inverness Prison

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways the new segregation unit being built at Inverness Prison will differ from the old segregation unit at Peterhead started in 1951; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Willis: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave to him on 9th March.—[Vol. 725, c. 521.]

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister of State aware that all of us on this side wish him well, particularly at Christmas time, and hope that there will be no Christmas escapes from Scottish prisons in the way they seem to be so easily occurring south of the Border at present? Is he aware that the segregation unit at Peterhead was developed in 1951 and was a very great success, in spite of opposition to it, and that one essential feature of the segregation unit now being established at Inverness must be an awareness in the prison population of the disadvantages and the punishment nature of the centre?

Mr. Willis: The segregation unit at Peterhead served its purpose, but the purpose at Inverness is rather different. We also think that the establishment at Inverness will avoid some of the problems that a rose at Peterhead.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Refreshment Department (Losses)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council what inquiries have been conducted into the reasons for the losses of the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons; and if he will now make a report on the matter.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) has not yet completed its investigations into the reasons for the losses of the Refreshment Department, but it hopes to be able to make a report to the House soon after the Recess.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend convey to the new manager our best wishes for his success in his job and assure him that he will get all possible support from the House? When the stage of making a report has been reached will my right hon. Friend consider publishing that report and making it available to hon. Members?

Mr. Crossman: I thank my hon. Friend for that message, which I will pass on

to the new manager. The question of publishing the report is something that we will have to consider when we have received the result of the investigations.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Lord President say when the Committee will be in a position to improve staff wages?

Mr. Crossman: That is quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENT)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Attorney-General (1) whether a recommendation of the Advisory Committee of a Lord Lieutenant must be unanimous before a person is recommended to the Lord Chancellor for appointment as a justice of the peace.
(2) what is the precise function of the Lord Lieutenant's Advisory Committee; and how it is appointed.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The advisory committees are not Lord Lieutenants' Committees, but are appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to assist him, in confidence in the appointment and removal of justices of the peace in their areas, and in the selection of new justices when vacancies occur. My noble Friend has a complete discretion but would not ordinarily accept a recommendation from an advisory committee for the appointment of a justice if any member of the committee opposed the recommendation.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is no constituency implication in my Question? Would he not agree that, under the present system, there is a danger of a man who might be otherwise quite suitable not being recommended, simply because of hostility on the part of one member of the committee? What proportion of the committee is made up of nonpolitical appointees, remembering that it would be wrong for the public to think that only party adherents can be appointed to the bench?

The Attorney-General: I hope that no member of the advisory committee would be allowed to be influenced by emotions


of personal hostility. If there is any indications of such a case, I am sure that my noble Friend would be glad to be informed about it. The essence in these appointments is that the candidate should have the appropriate merit and qualification for the job. We have had a good deal of discussion lately about the importance of the bench reflecting the broad spectrum of the community as a whole and that there should be no undue preponderance of one political party. In fact, many J.P.s have no political affiliations at all.

Mr. Renton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the advisory committees have a difficult and delicate task to discharge and that they have, for the most part, discharged this task very well, with satisfactory results?

The Attorney-General: Yes, that is so.

ROYAL ASSENT

12.3 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER: reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Armed Forces Act 1966.
2. Bus Fuel Grants Act 1966.
3. National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Act 1966.
4. Films Act 1966.
5. Housing (Scotland) Act 1966.
6. Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act 1966.
7. Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966.
8. Police (Scotland) Act 1966.
9. Ross and Cromarty (Strathcarron South Strome Road) Order Confirmation Act 1966.
10. Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Act 1966.
11. Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I was on my feet prior to the recent interruption, Mr. Speaker, under the impression that you were calling me to ask a

supplementary question. Was I correct, and may I now be called?

Mr. Speaker: This is almost a nice point of theology, but the hon. Member was not called.

"THE TIMES" AND THE "SUNDAY TIMES"

12.16 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the proposed transfer of The Times and the Sunday Times to a newspaper proprietor.
I have received the Report of the Monopolies Commission, which is being published today. The Commission concluded that the proposed transfer may be expected not to operate against the public interest. I accept its conclusion and have accordingly given my consent to the proposed transfer.
The Thomson Organisation has formally confirmed to me the personal assurance given by Lord Thomson to the Monopolies Commission about the preservation of the separate identities of The Times and the Sunday Times, and about the maintenance of the independence of their editors.

Mr. Barber: As none of us has had an opportunity of seeing the Report the Monopolies Commission, we obviously cannot comment on it in detail, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three short questions.
First, is he aware that the economic difficulties of The Times are merely a reflection of the problems of the newspaper industry generally, and that other national dailies of all political persuasions are in dire straits?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the duty of a Government, wherever possible, is to avoid any action which is calculated to make less viable the production of newspapers? I have in mind, for example, the imposition of the import surcharge on newsprint in 1964 and the loss of advertising which is directly due to the Government's deflationary measures.
Thirdly, and lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that editorial costs are only a fraction of total costs and that The Times and other newspapers are


bedevilled by restrictive practices in the production and distributive sides which helped to kill the News Chronicle and will kill other newspapers? Does not he agree that these restrictive practices are a national scandal and that the Government, in the national interest, have a clear duty to intervene?

Mr. Jay: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that other newspapers are in difficulties at present, and that we must all feel real anxiety about the situation. There are certainly a number of things which we would like to see improved in the newspaper industry, but the main reason for the industry's present economic difficulties was the introduction of commercial television by the party opposite.

Mr. Grimond: I should also like to ask three questions. First, what is the form of the formal assurances given by the Thomson Organisation? Are they legally binding on that organisation indefinitely? Secondly, is the editor-in-chief to continue in office over the two papers? How is this to be reconciled with the independence of the existing editors? Thirdly, have there been any recommendations about the printing arrangements for other newspapers, which certainly affect the whole matter?

Mr. Jay: The assurances given will be binding now on the Thomson Organisation and not just on Lord Thomson.

Mr. Grimond: Legally binding?

Mr. Jay: I thought that it was not sufficient to have assurances just by Lord Thomson personally. Therefore, we have now obtained written assurances on behalf of the Thomson Organisation.
As for the independence of the editors, the assurance made clear that the two editors will be responsible for political and other opinions expressed in the newspapers and will not be able to be interfered with by the editor-in-chief.
As to the rights—and it is The Guardian and the Observer that we have in mind, which are both to be printed on presses under the control of this organisation—legal arrangements have been made which will ensure these rights for 10 years ahead. In the Commission's view, that was as far as it was possible to guarantee them.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House very much regret the Commission's findings in this matter, in that they seem to condone a further concentration of ownership in the already immensely strong Thomson Organisation, and that this thus represents a grave threat to democracy? Will he tell the House what is to happen after the death of Lord Thomson? Are we to understand that there will be a limitation on the ultimate disposal of the capital of the Thomson Organisation—at present owned by Thomson International of Toronto—in this new joint venture?

Mr. Jay: It is just because we had anxieties as to what might occur after the death of Lord Thomson that I thought it necessary to go rather beyond what the Commission recommended and obtain these formal assurances not from Lord Thomson personally, but from the Thomson Organisation. They will remain binding after his death.
As to my hon. Friend's views about the Commission's Report, when he reads the Report he will see that the Commission was not by any means without anxieties about the whole situation, but its view was that this was the only firm arrangement in sight which would preserve The Times as an independent newspaper.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the restrictive practices to which my right hon. Friend referred have caused the cancellation of two new evening newspapers which were started in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, that 200 people have moved from other parts of the country, giving up their jobs to take employment with these two newspapers, that many of them have bought houses in the area and that they now find themselves without a job?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must arise out of the statement.

Mr. Goodhew: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to endorse the importance of looking at the restrictive practices in the printing industry, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do just this.

Mr. Jay: There is no question that there are regrettable practices in the newspaper industry, but, as my right hon.


Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, this and other aspects of the industry are being reviewed by the Joint Board for the National Newspaper Industry at present, and we had better await its decision.

Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such is the interest in this subject, as is evidenced by all Members who wish to ask questions on it, that we do not think that anything irrevocable should be done until we have had a debate in the House? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when he made this reference this morning to television it seemed to me that he was seizing on a purely peripheral point which hardly affected the principle with which we are now concerned?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a great deal of interest in the subject and that probably we shall all digest the Report over Christmas. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend will redigest it and will consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to having a debate as soon as possible after Christmas. This is a far more important matter than many things which the House goes out of its way to discuss.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has noted those views and I understand that he is willing and ready to have a debate as soon as possible. But it was necessary for us to make a statement, having given the Commission three months to come to a decision, because of the uncertainty of the situation which causes great difficulties for The Times itself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Returning to the assurances on which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the recommendations of the Commission and his own consent were given, can he say whether he or some other Minister accepts Ministerial responsibility for ensuring that these are implemented?

Mr. Jay: I would certainly accept Ministerial responsibility to do all that is in my power to see that they are implemented.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that referring the Thomson application to the Monopolies Commission has almost a Gilbertian ring about it? Is

it not extraordinary that the Monopolies Commission can award this newspaper to a monopoly? Have my right hon. Friends and the Government not considered that some form of public control running this as an independent newspaper similar to the B.B.C. might be tried by the Government before turning it over to Lord Thomson?

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend may think it Gilbertian of me to have referred the matter to the Monopolies Commission, but I am bound to do so by the Statute passed by Parliament.
As to wider questions of possible public control, I do not think they arise strictly on this matter, but I would think that the newspaper industry is one of the last, in which the Government would wish to intervene.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many will see the majority Report as toleration by the Monopolies Commission of at least a tendency towards the growth of monopoly in quality newspapers? Is he further aware that there were some well-authenticated versions of this Report available in the Press yesterday? Can he say why the House was not the first to know of the Report?

Mr. Jay: As I said before, we all share the anxieties expressed during the last five minutes about the situation in the newspaper industry, but so far nobody has found a satisfactory solution. As to the publication of this Report, it was made available for the first time to Parliament at 11.30 this morning.

Mr. Allason: In considering the Report, did the Government take account of the difficulties in the newspaper industry over inter-union manning?

Mr. Jay: That is one of the aspects of the whole problem, but it was not specifically raised over this particular issue of The Times.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the situation in Scotland, where Lord Thomson now controls the Scotsman and owns Scottish Television? Further, he has made one attempt to take over the Glasgow Herald, which he may try again. This means control not only of daily newspapers, but of weekly newspapers.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I introduced a Bill for the nationalisation of The Times about six years ago and that the House gave it a Second Reading? Why does my right hon. Friend dispose so lightly of the idea of public control when the B.B.C. runs a good successful weekly paper, the Listener, which has more reliability in its news than many newspapers? Why dismiss out of hand the idea of public control?

Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend knows, the B.B.C. does not express political opinions as the B.B.C., whereas newspapers do. Therefore, there is a distinction. We must all be anxious about this. The Thomson Organisation now controls quite a large section of the quality newspapers in this country. On the other hand, if we look at the total circulation of all newspapers, we see that the proportion is very much smaller.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Should not we be realistic and recognise that 10 or 11 morning newspapers are commercial enterprises? If they are to be adversely affected by economic conditions, some of which have been brought about by the present Government, having regard to the trend of the times, should we not accept further amalgamations and rationalisations among the 10 or 11 morning newspapers?

Mr. Jay: Even though we recognise the commercial realities, we must feel considerable concern about the dwindling independence of the Press. That is the problem before us.

Mr. Buchan: Surely, as my right hon. Friend is worried about the dwindling independence of the Press, he will agree that the last thing we want to do is to hand over one-third of the quality newspapers to one organisation? In Scotland, not only the quality Press but commercial television is in the same hands. Now it is suggested that two out of the six morning newspapers should be handed over. The Government would do better—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions please.

Mr. Buchan: Would my right hon. Friend not do better by following the minority Report?

Mr. Jay: As I thought I had already explained to my hon. Friend, on the most important point I have obtained a

substantial assurance from the Thomson Organisation which was suggested in the minority Report. I did that for precisely the reasons that he sets forth. I think that we are all anxious to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, the genuine independence of the editors of these two newspapers.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In answer to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would accept Ministerial responsibility in respect of these assurances so far as he had the power. Since these assurances obviously go very much to the heart of the matter, and the House is at some disadvantage in canvassing these matters without having seen the text of them, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House to whom the assurances are given, by whom they are enforceable, and by what machinery they are enforceable?

Mr. Jay: The original assurance was given personally by Lord Thomson to the Commission. The renewed stronger assurances were given by the Thomson Organisation to myself. They are, clearly, morally binding on the organisation. What I said, and I repeat, is that I will do all in my power to see that they are carried out. I have no reason to believe that they will not be carried out.

Mr. Mendelson: As my right hon. Friend has now three times repeated the term "written assurances and moral obligations", will he tell the House whether, if for commercial or other reasons which perhaps in the future could be justifiably argued by Lord Thomson and his successors, there will be any authority to countermand any change or move away from the position given in those assurances? If there is not, why are the Government in such haste? Why not let the House express an opinion on this before taking final action?

Mr. Jay: I am glad that the House of Commons should express such opinions, but these assurances have just as much validity as any other assurance given to a Minister in a formal written document, and I do not think that we should depreciate the value of such an assurance.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Reverting to the third question raised by my right hon. Friend, is not the overriding problem in this matter the restrictive practices in


the printing industry, admittedly assisted, perhaps, by the spinelessness of managements over the years? Surely the Government cannot opt out completely in its consideration of this matter. Should not the Government move on this whole problem of restrictive practices in the industry?

Mr. Jay: I am not sure exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. We have already had the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press, and there is now a review going on by the joint body in the industry which I have described. When we have its conclusions, we shall certainly consider them. I do not think that the restrictive practices to which the hon. Gentleman referred are the only trouble in the industry. There are many faults going much wider than that.

Mr. Marquand: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem is much wider than simply the Thomson take-over of The Times? What we are really discussing this morning is the future of the quality Press and the possibility of the disappearance of any independent quality press in this country.
Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government, during the Recess, will come forward with proposals to ensure the survival of independent, dissenting radical newspapers in this country, of the quality of The Guardian and the Observer, possibly by altering the arrangements whereby advertising revenue is now concentrated in a very small number of hands, possibly by leasing presses to independent groups of journalists? I do not know the exact mechanism, but can the Government at least give an assurance that they will think very hard and very radically on these lines during the Recess?

Mr. Jay: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I have said several times today that there are much wider problems than this. We are certainly seriously considering whether there is any possible solution which has not yet been discovered, and I am prepared to consider any suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the last reply by my right hon. Friend, and the fact that the Commission points out that the apprehensions are not groundless, would he not have a further look at this matter and withdraw his giving of consent at

this stage, and let the House of Commons discuss the whole matter? It is of such great importance that I appeal to my right hon. Friend to let the House discuss this at great length before any final decision is taken.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I cannot withdraw the consent given, because although we have to consider these wider problems, and the Government will do so, my hon. Friend must really face the fact that we have to ensure that The Times can immediately carry on. After the Commission had three months to consider this, its conclusion, to which I must pay some respect, is that there is no other practical way of doing it which is in sight.

Mr. Rowland: If, as my right hon. Friend says, moral assurances are as good as legal assurances, why should Lord Thompson not be willing to make his moral assurances as legal assurances? Secondly, given that my right hon. Friend is now giving consent, and presumably this is irrevocable, should he not have consulted the House of Commons before giving that consent?

Mr. Jay: As to the latter question, I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that it has always been the practice of all Governments since the Monopolies Act was passed in 1949 that the Government, simultaneously with the publication of the Report, should make up their mind on accepting its decision. I regard the assurances as being as fully binding as any assurances can be.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there contingency planning in the Board of Trade for a potential situation in which my right hon. Friend might be asked by sections of the Press for Government help? Should such help be offered, would he make it clear that any newspaper receiving help is in no way beholden to the Government and will have the inalienable right to spit in the Government's eye—any Government's eye?

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend is asking a slightly hypothetical question. I would certainly say, as I did, that we are seriously considering these very difficult problems. I do not want to be taken here and now to be offering what my hon. Friend calls help to any newspaper.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to give such quick assent to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission before giving the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss this most important matter.
I want to be very brief and to concentrate entirely on the Standing Order involved.
First, the House of Commons is adjourning today for the Christmas Recess and there will be no opportunity whatsoever to use any of the established means of Parliamentary procedure to bring this matter again before the House for almost four weeks.
Secondly, I submit that in these circumstances the exchanges that we have just had place the House at a very serious disadvantage. Because of the publication of the Report, only a few minutes ago, no hon. Member, apart from members of the Government, was in a position to know the contents of the Report. There have been some leaks, but Members of Parliament cannot act on leaks. They have to see the official text of the Report before they can form a considered opinion.
Thirdly, there can be no doubt about the public importance of this matter. There is not only the decision on this particular newspaper, but there are involved a number of general principles which are highlighted by the difficulties in which The Times finds itself.
In these circumstances, although it is pleaded that quick action was needed, a delay of a few weeks in order to give the House of Commons an opportunity to debate the matter would have been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is on those grounds that I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision by Her Majesty's Government to give such quick assent to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission before

giving the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss this most important matter.
The House instructed me yesterday to adjourn the House without putting any Question at 5 o'clock tonight. The Standing Order is, clearly, not operable in these circumstances.

Mr. Atkinson: Arising out of that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could add to your knowledge on this situation, in the sense that in view of the advocacy of my hon. Friend in stressing the imminent possibilities that are likely to arise during the Recess—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, with all due respect, has not understood the Ruling that I gave. May I assure him that I am seized of the important issue that was sought to be raised under Standing Order No. 9. I usually am. The question of Standing Order No. 9 usually comes on important issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning my Ruling.

Mr. Atkinson: No, Sir, I am not. With great respect, I am seeking not to question your Ruling but to try to add to the information which has already been given to the House, because some of the trade unions which are involved in this matter will be asked to negotiate on their future during the Recess. I would like, therefore, with your permission, very briefly to state—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this. I must protect the business of the House, and the business has been laid down for today. It was because this matter was so urgent that I allowed questions to run for 40 minutes. But I have ruled on the question of the Standing Order, and the matter must be raised by the hon. Gentleman in some other way with the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Atkinson: I am not challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out that you allowed questions to run for 25 minutes, not 40 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I looked quickly at the clock. I withdraw that. It was 25 minutes.

Mr. Mendelson: May we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances? As a general principle, and not on this particular matter, how is the House of Commons to be protected? If


the Executive is in a position to move and have passed the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for a Recess, and to do this not just one day, as in this case, but several days in advance of the effective date of the Adjournment, if it wishes, then, if the Executive brings forward a whole series of most important decisions, is not the House of Commons prevented, under the Ruling you have just given, from raising them under Standing Order No. 9 or in any other way? Would not this be an intolerable situation?

Mr. Speaker: I am bound by the practice of the House. I am seized of the importance of the grave issue raised now by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I understand that the House is to consider this issue of Standing Order No. 9 at some time in the new year. I hope that it will give serious consideration to all aspects of the question of Standing Order No. 9 which, I know, troubles the House.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The proposed arrangement of subjects for debate on the Adjournment is set out on the Order Paper. If any hon. Member who has had time allocated to him wishes to waive his right to have the subject opposite his name discussed, would we then be able to discuss the question of the Monopolies Commission's Report on The Times?

Mr. Speaker: The subjects to be discussed are the subjects set out on the Order Paper. Hon. Members have chosen certain topics for discussion.

Mr. Lipton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. He need not repeat it. The matters for discussion are those on the Order Paper. I must leave it at that.
May I point out that we are now 45 minutes behind the time set for the beginning of the Adjournment debates. For those hon. Members who have debates, this means, roughly, cutting off one-tenth of the allocated time. I hope that hon. Members who have Adjournment debates will be fair to those who follow later.
I have asked the Table hurriedly to draft new timings for the debates, and these are as follows. The first debate will run from 12.40 to 1.30; the second from 1.30 to 2.10; the third from 2.10 to 2.50; the fourth from 2.50 to 3.40; the fifth from 3.40 to 4.20; and the sixth from 4.20 to 5 o'clock.

BILL PRESENTED

WATER (SCOTLAND)

Bill to provide for the establishment of regional water boards and a Central Scotland Water Development Board, and the transfer to those boards of functions in relation to water supply in Scotland previously exercisable by local water authorities, to confer on the Central Scotland Water Development Board functions in relation to the bulk supply of water to its constituent regional water boards, to enable other regional water boards and water development boards to be established by order of the Secretary of State, to amend the Water (Scotland) Acts, 1946 and 1949; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. William Ross; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th January and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

WAR DISABILITY PENSIONERS

12.43 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy in allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I thank you also for rearranging the time allocated so that my debate will not be prejudiced. It is my duty in these circumstances to be as brief as I can, and I propose, therefore, not to elaborate certain matters which I have in mind. It is my duty, also, not to refer to legislation but to outline only in a factual sense the effect of Acts of Parliament upon war disability pensioners, and this I shall do.
What are the main problems confronting war disability pensioners? First, there is the question of the value of pensions. The improvement in war disability pensions in March, 1965, when the basic rate of compensation was raised to 135s. a week, brought the purchasing value of the pension to slightly more than the old 40s. a week pension of 1938. That increase in March, 1965, in the basic payment, therefore, which brought the value of the pension to only slightly above the rate in 1938, illustrates that for these pensioners, and probably for all pensioners, inflation knows no frontiers, and these pensioners, the most deserving in the population, suffer just as much in terms of income or compensation as anyone else.
In March, 1965, when 135s. a week became the operative basic rate, the Index of Retail Prices stood at 109·9, but in August, 1966, the index had risen to 117·3. In other words, since March, 1965, the purchasing power has dropped to 126s. 8d. Therefore, even at the present quite generous basic rate of 135s., the pensioner is slightly worse off in terms of purchasing power than he was in 1938 at the 40s. level.
There are, surprisingly, no fewer than 448,000 war disability pensioners, and there are 13,700 whose income is limited to war pension and allowances. These 13,000 severely disabled consist of about 5,000 survivors from the First World War and 7,000 from the Second World War. I beg the Government to realise, in their future consideration of this matter, that it is this section of the disabled, the

severely disabled numbering 13,700, who are entitled to first priority in any easements which the Government, in due time, I hope, will be able to make in regard to pensions.
I turn now to another subject, artificial limbs and appliances. It is very sad that, although Great Britain used to be far ahead in the design and fitting of artificial limbs, we have now lost our place in the world in this work. I was distressed two or three years ago when a delegation of British limbless ex-Service men went to the Scandinavian countries and Germany and found that their British limbs were considered by the Scandinavians and the Germans to be inferior to what they themselves possessed. But there is a possibility that, even if we cannot achieve our old position, we can catch up again by the creation of the bio-mechanical research department at Roehampton which, I understand, the Minister of Health is to open in the new year.
I hope that there will be research not only into improving many of our fittings and appliances but into ways to cure the present delays in limb fitting at Roehampton. I need not remind the House of a most distressing strike which took place a few weeks ago among the limb fitters at Roehampton. It was most unfortunate. A special appeal about it was made on television programmes. While I sympathise with the members of the organisation for whom I am privileged to speak, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, I am sympathetic also to the views expressed by the limb fitters who were on strike. I feel that there is a way by which the problems created in distressing circumstances like that can be cured. I realise that on this theme there are differences between the parties, but this is my proposal. I should like to see limb fitting centres set up under the regional hospital boards in our orthopaedic hospitals and the limb fitters at Roehampton brought under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health, being treated as fully qualified technicians on level terms with other technical grades in the National Health Service.
In those circumstances, the Ministry of Health would not only be responsible for supplying the limbs but would become responsible for the technicians and the


fitting of those limbs. I know that different views have been expressed from both sides of the House as to just how far the great National Health Service umbrella should be extended. But I am anxious never to see again a limb fitting strike such as that which took place at Roehampton and caused so much distress among the members of the organisation for whom I speak.
I now turn to a third subject, the provision of mini-cars for the disabled. No doubt hon. Members saw the headline and article in the Evening Standard last night concerning invalid drivers and the great row blowing up in Sussex about tricycles and wheeled vehicles. It is necessary to send to a special depôt in Lancashire for fittings, and there is delay. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security knows all about that problem. I do not want to elaborate on it, but to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry of Health for supplying no fewer than 5,000 mini-cars to disabled ex-Service men.
That is a great triumph. How superb that small car is. I hoped for years that the motor manufacturers would design a vehicle which would be perfect for the limbless man, and suddenly they produced for the public at large a car that is not only popular with everybody but is extremely suitable for the limbless ex-Service man. There is still a large demand. I know that the hon. Gentleman will also be speaking for the Ministry of Health, which controls these matters, and I know that the sum involved is enormous. This subject has been mentioned at Question Time.
If any Government had to meet the entire requirement it would cost them about £40 million. However, we are grateful to the Government for their cooperation so far not only in regard to the provision of mini-cars for disabled drivers but for their most helpful cooperation in dealing with individual cases. I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely well-informed on this subject and is most sympathetic to our claims. I hope that, as 1967 progresses, we shall perhaps have another small helping. I may not be able to ask for 500, but how about a suitable supply to take the 5,000 just a little higher in the coming year?
I now turn to the main point, which is the matter which creates the most burning anger among the disabled. That is the rate rebate scheme. The impact of the scheme is well known to all hon. Members. I and the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) recently circulated the necessary documents to all hon. Members. I am angry with the Government because, under the scheme, for the first time since 1919 the war disability pension has been treated as income and not as a compensation.
It is an award earned in the field by a man who has been gravely injured. We have never interfered with his right to have that as compensation and not considered as income. It is not for me to elaborate on the scheme, based on the Allen Report, whereby 75 per cent. of the ratepayers subsidise the other 25 per cent. But it compelled the Government to make two levels, and for a married couple the ceiling for rate rebate was set at £10 a week.
The result is that if two married couples living next door to each other both enjoy the National Insurance pension of £6 10s. a week, but one man has a disability compensation payment of £4 9s., that couple are taken over the ceiling of £10. They therefore cannot receive the rebate, and that means that the war disability pensioner is put in the position of subsidising his next door neighbour.
I would much rather see the rebate provided from central funds and not brought down to the homes in this way. There is nothing more disastrous than making people quarrel, as happens at present, about rate rebate. In the debates on this matter at the end of the last Parliament the Government did not modify their view about war disability pensions, and we shall cover that ground again. I still look upon such pensions as an award and compensation and I resent the Treasury's treating them as part of income for the first time in our history. Not even in the great financial crisis of 1931 did we invade the compensation sum paid to war pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, you know my position in the House. I belong to a very small number of hon. Members who served in the battles of the Somme. I also belong to another small surviving number of hon. Members who left the House on 3rd September, 1939, to rejoin the Armed Forces.


That I survived both conflicts without a scratch is, perhaps, the greatest blessing I enjoy in life. I never go to that great gathering, the annual conference of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, without thanking the Creator, when I see that great roomful of men shattered by war, that I should have been allowed to go through the hazards of both wars without a scratch. I cannot recall suffering even one day's sickness in all my service as a professional soldier.
In taking over your great office, Mr. Speaker, you ended your speech of dedication by paying tribute to those who gave their lives in two world wars, and to those who are still with us, the members of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association. I hope that the time will come when the House will take steps to bring to an end the circumstances in which limbless ex-Servicemen have their right in compensation described as an income.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I express to you, Mr. Speaker, our appreciation for extending the time available for discussing the problems of the war disabled. I am pleased that we are being allowed a little social injury time so that we may extend our debate.
I support the plea of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) on the subjects which he raised which are of very great consequence for the limbless ex-Service men. I should like particularly to draw attention to the way in which the war disability pension is affected under the rate rebate scheme. This is a matter which gives great concern and a feeling of injustice to limbless ex-Service men vis-à-vis other people who are receiving social benefits.
There seems to be a misconception in the House as to what is a war disability pension and whether, even with the merger of the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of National Insurance, it should be treated in a similar way to other pensions. The question of war disability pensions is separate. A war disability pension is compensation for loss of faculty. Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that such a pension should be free from the taxation which is involved in other social service benefits. That is sacrosanct. That same freedom from

taxation should be applied to the rebate scheme in calculating the income of a disabled ex-Service man.
It is true that Parliament decided that matter in the last Parliament, but under our constitution what one Parliament has done another Parliament can undo. That is fundamental under the constitutional law of this country. The decision that a war disability pension should be treated as income under the rate rebate scheme was a very serious mistake. We should like Parliament—and it would be a sign of its greatness if it did this—to admit that it made a mistake and to exclude the war disability pension for income purposes. This should be corrected as soon as possible so that the anxiety of disabled ex-Service men and their relations is removed.
It was to that end that we tabled a Motion. It was an all-party Motion. This was not a party question. It is not submitted by the hon. Member for Withington or myself as a party question. This country has a very fine record in improving pensions, whether by a Government of one party or another. Since 1950, I have had the privilege of being Honorary Secretary of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association all-party committee in the House. I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House, since the improvements made in the position of disabled ex-Service men have been considerable. We should not spoil a good record of achievement on behalf of the disabled ex-Service men by including their income from disability pension for taxation purposes under the rate rebate scheme. This is the fly in the ointment.
The hon. Member for Withington cited a very important case in which two people were each receiving £6 10s., one person from a disability pension and one person from a social service benefit. One is entitled to a rate rebate where the disability pensioner is at a great disadvantage. This is a clear anomaly and it is Parliament's duty to look at it as soon as possible.
I have been in comunication with each of the last two Ministers of Housing and Local Government. My right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the House wrote a letter to me dated 17th March, 1966, in which he said:
Thank you for your note enclosing this copy of a letter from the General Secretary of


the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association about the Rating Act. I am sorry not to have replied before.
We had a good look at pleas for disregards for such things as disability pensions in the final stages of Standing Committee on February 10th and 15th, as you will see if you look at the HANSARDS for Standing Committee D, discussion of new Clauses from column 268 onwards. The House of Commons took a further look at the justification for various disregards at Report Stage on February 24th, but no changes in the Bill were made. Much as we sympathise with the feeling that disability pensions should be left out of income for the rebate schemes, we have not been persuaded"—
and the object of our raising this matter is to persuade the Minister that it would be proper to disregard the war disability pension under the rate rebate scheme—
that it would be proper to have any disregards for this particular purpose. It seems to me that the fact that Income Tax is not payable on these pensions is in itself no precedent for leaving them out of income for rebate purposes. The problem is that if one starts having disregards, it is difficult to know where to stop—though we do understand the reasons which prompt people to suggest refinement of this sort.
The present Minister of Housing and Local Government said this in his letter to me:
I have looked most carefully into the background of the debates in Standing Committee and at Report on the Rating Bill earlier this year and I have concluded that the Government line was reasonable and justifiable. Both Dick Crossman and I have had many letters on this matter, particularly from branches of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, and have made it clear in our replies that we regard the issue as having been settled by the last Parliament.
I have already pointed out that what one Parliament has done another Parliament can undo.
The rebate scheme is a tax reform with a limited objective—to reduce the proportion of lower incomes taken by rates, in order to lessen the regressive nature of rates and improve them as a tax.
Neither letter, while couched in sympathetic terms, deals with the fundamental principle that a disability pension is in a category of its own, whereas benefit under a social service scheme is entirely different.
I support what the hon. Member for Withington said on the other matters which he raised. I emphasise that the treatment of disabled ex-Service men under the rate rebate scheme is not just and that 244 Members have to date signed

our Motion No. 163 agreeing with us. I hope, accordingly, that the Government, realising the urgency of the matter, will think again and will relieve the limbless ex-Service men from the additional disability from which they are suffering under the rate rebate scheme. I am sure that all sections of the country and the House, if they were asked their frank opinion, would support us and regard it as a duty to help or relieve disabled ex-Service men in this way. I am sure that this great country is not so broke—not that it is broke at all; we have many great assets—that it cannot afford to allow disabled ex-Service men to benefit from the rate rebate scheme and thus enable them to live happier lives.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: We on this side of the House are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) for raising this subject today. The whole House is aware of my hon. Friend's longstanding interest and his expertise in matters relating to the war disabled. His hon. Friends on this side support fully the Motion on the disabled, which is also supported by a number of hon. Members on the benches opposite.
Until the election of a Labour Government in 1964, it was always the policy of successive Governments that disability suffered by war pensioners as a result of service in the Forces merited special generosity. The reason is quite simple. The war disabled were our comrades who fought to preserve the sort of society we were all trying to build. In fighting, they sacrified their opportunity to live a full life in the years that followed—I would not like to live in an occupied country—and for the rest of their lives they are paying the price for my freedom. That is how I see it. They have certainly earned their place in the hearts of the British people, but not, it appears, in the hearts of the present Labour Government.
Successive British Governments prior to 1964 have all taken the view that the war disabled merited special treatment in matters of finance. Consequently, war pensions and allowances paid to war pensioners, but not to their dependants, have been disregarded for Income Tax assessment. In the same way, a major part of war pensions and allowances has been


disregarded for purposes of assessing National Assistance need.
Early this year, as has been said so eloquently both by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), the Rating Act brought a marked change of attitude to these men by denying them any special consideration under the rate rebate scheme. The Opposition made the strongest possible protests about this when the Bill was passing through its various stages. The issue was debated both in Standing Committee on 10th and 15th February and again on Report on 24th February, when a new Clause was moved by the Opposition. The then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now Leader of the House, rejected the new Clause on the assumption that the new Rating Act would provide essentially a tax concession which was intended to ease the burden of the less affluent members of society and should not be confused with social service provisions.
In replying to the debate on the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that was pensions constituted
a highly worked out social service".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1966; Vol. 725, C. 670.]
In our view, far from being a social service, war disability pensions are payments borne by the Exchequer as compensation for physical disability and loss of function due to injuries suffered in the service of the nation. They are not related to the economic circumstances of the individual, and the amount of pension is based on a medical assessment of functional loss. These are the payments that, we believe, should be disregarded for purposes of the rate rebate scheme. They are not social insurance payments. They are not based on financial need. They are not benefits from a contributory pension scheme. They are compensation paid by the nation as an employer to those who have suffered grievously in the service of that employer. As such, the compensation should be paid in full and should not be subject to deductions in the form of any kind of tax collected by that same employer. That is our view.
The Government, of course, have a substantial Parliamentary majority and for the time being they have forced their

shabby treatment of these deserving people through the legislative processes. I hope that with a change of Minister at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, we may look for a change of heart. I confess to some misgivings on this score, but it is the season of good will.
Whether or not the Government reconsider the position, I should like to make our own position quite clear. The Conservative Opposition remain implacably opposed to any measure, including this one, that treats a war disability pension as if it were income for the purposes of taxation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington also raised the question of the work-to-rule—incidentally, not a strike—by limb fitters at Roehampton. Whilst I share his concern at the distress caused to the patients, who, goodness knows, have in all conscience already suffered enough by this type of action on the part of the limb fitters, I do not feel able to endorse his proposed remedy. It does not seem to me that to move a man from the private sector to the public sector would put any obstacle in the way of his working to rule if he wanted to. In fact, on the record so far, I should have said that a man was more likely to work to rule in the public sector than ever he was in the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" In the private sector, the tendency is rather to strike than to work to rule.
The particular problem to which my hon. Friend referred has now been solved, but there are other problems at Roehampton which are still in urgent need of solution. For example, the appointments arrangements are still appallingly bad, as are the transport facilities for ferrying patients to and fro. I hope that these will be looked at as matters of urgency. There is no doubt that the patients, who already have enough to bear, are quite unnecessarily having to suffer frustration, irritation and tiring, time-wasting periods of inactivity.
As we move into the Christmas Recess, I should like to end on a note of peace and good will. I should like for example to be able to commend the Government for the improvements in war disability pensions which became effective at the end of March, 1965, when the 100 per


cent. basic rate of compensation was raised to 135s. This was certainly welcomed at the time by all the ex-Service organisations. Unhappily, however, the Government's record is not quite as good as it looks. Since that time, according to my calculation, the purchasing power of that 135s. a week has dropped by about 9s.
Therefore, in all financial matters—I exempt the question of mini-cars, on which the Government have a good record and for which I give them credit—relating to war disability pensioners the Government appear to have a worsening record. The ability of these people to live by reasonable standards is becoming more rapidly eroded than ever before. It is to our shame that this is so. Can we know, I wonder, when the Government propose to reverse this process?

1.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Harold Davies): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who opened this debate. I am grateful to him for the manner in which he raised the subject. One does not doubt the absence of ulterior motive and the absolute sincerity of the hon. Member, whose gallant record is known not only to this House, but to the country. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) for his contribution. I therefore impute no ulterior motives in the debate and I will try to answer it in exactly the same spirit.
If I may change the key, however, I was a little worried when the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) said that it was not in the hearts of the Labour Government to recognise the sacrifices and the price paid by these men for our freedom. That is a bit hot. That is all I will say about it, otherwise I could really get into orbit and spoil the atmosphere of the debate. I know the nature of the hon. Gentleman and I know that he does not really mean that. Let us, therefore, deal with the realities as constructively as we can.
Throughout all my journeys during the past two years or more with our officials—who serve all Governments—when going to meetings concerned with war pensions committees of one kind and

another, B.L.E.S.M.A. and to places like Roehampton, where my responsibilities overlap with those of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, I have never failed to pay tribute to the work that was done by the previous Government when dealing with these complicated problems. Having said that, I hope that I have created the right atmosphere for the reply to this debate.
This is a subject with which the whole country has great sympathy, and we have too little opportunity to discuss it. We in this House meet on common ground when we discuss war pensions, and as I have pointed out—I have certainly tried to—we make it not a party matter.
I have been very conscious of the difficulty which we are in this morning because of the looming shadow of the rules of order as they affect one subject, namely, the question of the rates, but later I will try to answer fairly some of these problems, which need answering, about rates rebates.
Taking up the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Withington mentioned, the question of value, I am an old hand at statistics myself, and when I want to make a political speech what I can do with statistics is nobody's business, and there are other men in this House who can do so as well. I can make them dance about and serve my purpose—without my tongue in my cheek, because the figures I quote do serve my purpose. I am careful not to quote those which do not. What is the truth? We have had to meet a great deal of this increase in the cost of living, and that increase is in the nature of the kind of society in which we are living, and it is happening all over the world, but I want to reiterate that when we came to power we gave the largest single increase that has ever been given to war pensioners. We are aware of this: the value of this pension and its position is just about ahead.
There again, the hon. Member for Carlton said, "Of course, on some of the material things you have done well, but you have forgotten the financial side." There is something which we must not forget. I do not want to claim all the credit for this Government. I see present the right hon. Gentleman the Member


for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who was a previous Minister of Pensions. He will know of the work which was done by the McCorquodale Committee. The right hon. Gentleman gets the credit for setting that Committee in motion, but since we came into power—I do not want to make a party quip about it—despite all the difficulties of the country we, with alacrity, and a little charm, introduced the McCorquodale Committee's Report and a large increase on the financial side.
So never mind the statistics. What I am saying is that we are well ahead if we add all these up. If it is asked, "Are we satisfied?" I reply, "Which of us is ever satisfied?" But we have a practical issue of politics.

Sir R. Cary: I raised this issue because none of us can win against inflation. Inflation is the great enemy that we all, on both sides of the House, have to fight. The Government must consider this in considering the priorities when the easements come. I was claiming that then the war disability pensioners should be first.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's charm is almost overwhelming. I march shoulder to shoulder with him into battle on this issue of inflation.
Let me come now to motor cars. This is not entirely the responsibility of my Ministry but to try to give a coherent answer I have the authority and help of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to get this clear; there is some overlapping between the Departments. In October, 1964, there were 4,250 war pensioners whose cars were supplied through the Health Department. Today there are 5,500, as well as about 250 National Health Service patients who have the benefit of arrangements introduced under extra statutory powers in 1964. In addition—this is a point for the House, and it is very relevant—there are about 1,100 war pensioners who prefer to run their own cars and who receive special allowances to assist them so to do. It was the pressure of organisations like that to which the hon. Gentleman belongs and the British Legion and others that this sensible policy was introduced, and it has worked.
It is worthy of mention, too, and I think the House should know, that as well as

cars there are about 500 war pensioners who, strangely enough, still prefer to have the invalid tricycle although they could, if they wished, be supplied with cars. There are a number of reasons for this, on which statements have been made in the House by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and also the Minister of Health—that the invalid tricycle is a reliable machine if it is properly driven and maintained. It continues to meet a real need amongst the severely disabled. As the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), smiling there so charmingly and who contested the seat of Leek against me some years ago, will know, in Leek we have quite a number of these. The tricycles have certain advantages. For instance, they can sometimes be parked in a man's backyard without any expense or difficulty involved if one wants to put up a garage—and there are some local authorities—I had better be careful—who are sometimes not hasty in allowing garage space. I came near to danger there.
Again, and this is the direct answer to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick. A review has recently been completed of the present processes and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in the House, in answer to a Question on 5th December, said that his right hon. Friend was now studying the results of the review and hoped to make a statement early in the new year. We must await his statement. It is not my responsibility, and he will, of course, take note of what has been said in this debate. That is why my hon. Friend is here, and he will also, as he has said on many occasions, have to take note of other priorities within and outside the Health Service.
I come to the matter of the limb fitters. I can just about fit this matter in in the time I have. It is through the fitter that the manufacturer is able to fulfil his responsibility under a contract to provide limbs which fit properly and which function properly, and it is because of that that the Minister of Health is able to hold the manufacturer to that responsibility. It is a responsibility, too, of the limb surgeon, because it is he who decides what the amputee should have, and it is the limb surgeon who has to be satisfied at the end of the day that the


manufacturer has fulfilled his contract. Whatever system we have, whether a public or private system, the key man here all the time is the limb surgeon, and whether we have it public or private—as we have in our nationalised industries, too—we can have work-to-rule.
May I sum up this by saying that I add my tribute to those paid on both sides of the House to the manufacturers. I have read the letter in The Times today from that lady and I, too, pay tribute to the people Who helped to get rid of this working to rule, and I am delighted it has come to an end. Now we are trying to catch up with the backlog. That is a terrible word, but I have used it.
The rates. Now I am going to say this. I have looked at this, the rates and rebates, the Allen Report. We know it is a regressive tax. Logic can be a horrible thing, but I must call it to my aid. With due respect, I think that both sides of the House are missing the point here. Rates have been going on for years. I put the 64 dollar question. Whether it was a Labour, Liberal or Conservative Government, why did they not, when they exempted people from Income Tax. 40 years ago in logic exempt them from payment of rates? It is as good a point. It could have been thought of then.
We are not putting a burden on a war pensioner who has two children and an income of £13 a week. He still comes in for the rebate. The result of the Allen Report is to relieve people from a regressive system of taxation. War pensioners always paid rates, yet, suddenly, as a result of the Allen Report, it is implied that we are neglecting the preference principle.
The fear is sometimes expressed that the special position of war pensioners may be endangered by the extension of the range of benefits under social security schemes. I am sure that that is quite misconceived. Some hon. Members appear to believe that this is a precedent, but far be it from the Ministry of Social Security to make any precedent of that. I do not want it to get abroad that, because the new Ministry of Social Security includes as only part of its work the War Pensions Scheme, there has been any neglect. There have been 28,000 personal visits to the severely disabled during last year. We have also sent out a note to

increase the number of visits to the old men of World War I by about another 11,000 a year. All these things are being kept in mind, as I am sure they would have been by any hon. Member opposite who held a post in the Ministry of Pensions. On rate rebate, the position remains the same, and I have no authority to go further.
I hope that I have answered the debate in the spirit in which it has been conducted. I feel sure that all responsible Ministers will have noted the importance of the various points which have been made today.

CHILD POVERTY

1.31 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: I wish today to discuss the topic of child poverty. In many ways, it is a dismal commentary on our so-called affluent society that this debate is necessary. The tragedy is that only over the last few years has this problem been appreciated by and delineated clearly to the general public. For that, we have to thank the work in academic units throughout the country and particularly, more recently, the efforts of the Child Poverty Action Group.
I hope that what I say today will be taken by the Government as a challenge and not as a rebuke. I know the starkness of their inheritance, and I know and appreciate the very real concern of everyone in the Government from the Prime Minister downwards, particularly the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister for Social Security and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate. I hope that they will understand when I tell them that many of my hon. Friends are dismayed that we approach the third Christmas under a Labour Government still with no concrete proposals to help the low-income large family. We hope that we shall hear from the Government today a firm decision to increase family allowances, because, as I hope to show, that is the single and most effective measure to tackle this diffuse and manysided problem.
Recent estimates indicate that, at a minimum, there are 200,000 families and probably a maximum of nearly 300,000


where the breadwinners, the fathers, are in full-time work, and earn less than the basic minimum thought necessary by the Ministry of Social Security. We have a situation where approximately 500,000 to 600,000 children—more than half a million—suffer poverty, despite the fact that their fathers do a full day's work. I hope that that will answer categorically the myth that we are dealing only with parents who are irresponsible misfits or malingerers.
A further large group, which is becoming larger, are families where the fathers are unemployed, disabled or have fallen victims to the so-called wage stop. The wage stop hits low-wage earners and particularly those with large families. Often it is not widely realised that it also hits the sick, besides the permanently disabled. It is particularly tragic that this ruling should apply in sickness. Presumably it is an encouragement to people to get back to work, but how many fathers of large families with heavy commitments return to work before they should?
At a time when unemployment is rising—and, as a deliberate act following the Government's deflationary policy, though very necessary, it still means that many men are forced out of work—can we really justify a situation where, because they have lived below the poverty line before, we must ensure that they remain below the poverty line when they are out of work? The only way that I can see of circumventing the wage stop and ensuring that a man at work is not impoverished by the number of his children is the payment of a generous family allowance. When it is often said that this is an unpopular social security benefit, it needs re-emphasising that it has the full backing and support of the T.U.C.
Another large group of children living below minimal subsistence are those without a father in the household, either through divorce, desertion or death. There were half a million such children in 1961, and a reasonable estimate indicates that some 300,000 of those live below the poverty line as judged by the Ministry of Social Security.
Another group which is perhaps small, but which is very important to me be-

cause of my concern about disablement, is the family where the young mother is suddenly disabled. For her, there is no industrial benefit and no war pension. She is alone. In effect, that housewife and mother is a very real breadwinner, and suddenly that family is deprived of her services and the savings which her work can bring to the family's weekly budget. Suddenly, it is all lost. Disablement can turn a medium income into a low income, a low income into poverty, and someone in poverty into squalor. All the time, the chief sufferers are so often the children.
I believe that the need for a separate disablement income is overwhelming in these cases. It appears likely that nearly 1 million children are affected and are living below the subsistence level put out by the Ministry of Social Security, and in many ways that is not over-generous. I believe that the trend is increasing, and not decreasing. In my own constituency of Plymouth, particularly near the dockyard where wages are notoriously low, I have seen this problem many times. I am determined that something must be done to alleviate the worry and anxiety that so often follow these people with low incomes and large families. Often they make no claim on social security benefits. They battle alone against the very real difficulties of poverty. If some people suspect these figures, I should like them to look at other examples in which one can, to an extent, get some measure of the incidence of poverty.
It is a strange fact that the number of people living on a diet below the minimum level thought necessary by the B.M.A. has increased in the last few years. Ill health in children, particularly recurrent chest infections, is especially related to family circumstances, and we are still able to see differences in stature and physique related to family circumstances—not so much as before the war, but still present.
It is perhaps one thing to state the problem. It is another thing to formulate a solution. Most of all, we have to try to show how we are to pay for it.
There are a few myths about family allowances which need to be killed straight away. There is no evidence that an increase in family allowances also increases the birthrate and encourages large


families. The experience in Czechoslovakia, where the birthrate actually fell after the introduction of family allowances, is backed up by experience in Canada, Germany, Italy and Russia.
Another myth is that the Welfare State in Britain is a great provider and that we cannot possibly increase our expenditure. In fact, in this country we are spending less on social security benefits than practically any other European country. Our family allowances were last raised in 1956, and they were raised only once before then since their introduction. Germany is the only other country among the E.E.C. who, like us, does not give family allowances for the first child, but even they spend double the amount that we do on family allowances. When one looks at the other figures one sees that. France spends about six times as much, and Italy closely follows that. If Beveridge's original recommendation in wartime were introduced now, we would have a family allowance of about 25s. per child. These allowances have been allowed to fall markedly behind.
Given the need, given, as I believe, a solution, or at least a temporary solution, the question is payment. It is not my intention to cover all the numerous schemes which have been put forward in the newspapers recently. I should just like to warn the Government of one of the real dangers. That danger is that they could sabotage the credibility of family allowances by introducing an old-fashioned means test to overcome this problem in the short term.
If, as I hope, we successfully negotiate entry into the E.E.C., it will be vital to have developed before entry a system of family allowances which is acceptable throughout the country, a system which is fair, and is seen to be fair, for this I believe is the only possible way we have of offsetting gradual increases in the cost of the food prices which will inevitably follow entry.
It will be a bitter indictment of our contingency planning if we are now to be told that all the changes in the tax reliefs are to be defeated because the Inland Revenue is unable to introduce them before the Budget in 1967, and that we will have to wait until 1968. We have been discussing this problem for

nearly two years, and I hope very much that this will not be the Government's attitude.
If that regrettable situation were to be true, I would prefer the Government to concentrate an increase on the third and subsequent children as an interim measure. Even an increase of 5s. of the third and subsequent children would cost £32 million, giving a family allowance of 15s., but, here again, we would be paying allowances to those families which were well off, and to a certain extent at the expense of those less well off, unless we were not to give the increase to anybody who was claiming tax relief.
We must look again at the problem. I know that it is complicated, but let the Government make a declaration that in times of economic difficulties we will not shirk the perhaps unpopular decision in some quarters of redistributing wealth, that we simply cannot afford, for the sake of these children, to wait until we get expansion in our economy, expanding resources, and the establishment of growth.
I recognise that there is a real problem affecting the middle-income groups, people earning £1,200 a year, if we withdraw all tax relief, and I am fully aware that their position must be safeguarded. I would not like to see them worse off by withdrawing tax relief, but a Labour Government should not be prepared to continue a situation in which a family of four children, with the wage earner on £10 a week, has allowances to the value of £85 12s. a year, whereas a similar family, with the father earning £30 a week, gets allowances and tax relief to the value of £239 9s. a year. This is a situation which I believe exists, and which should not be allowed to continue.
I should like the Government to raise the low-wage earner's income so that it comes up to the supplementary benefit scale. This would mean about 30s. per child, which is a large amount of money. This is also the approximate amount which would be needed to compensate the standard rate Income Tax payer if we took away all his tax relief. By making allowances payable for all children, I believe that we could make this very much more acceptable, because at the moment quite a large number of families where there is only one child feel great bitterness that they are


exempted from family allowances and receive no benefit.
The estimated saving to the Exchequer in 1966–67, if tax relief were abolished, would be about £580 million. I think that we would need more money, and I would be prepared to look at the situation of the single man and increase his tax, for there is no doubt that he has developed a preferential position over the years. Perhaps I should add that I speak as a bachelor, so it would affect me.
How the Government finance this is a problem of great interest to us in the long term, though I realise that they are faced with a very real problem in the short term. However, quite apart from family allowances, there is something else that must be done. I believe that there is a growing need for an overall positive poverty programme, an attack on the problem from all fronts, for family allowances alone will not solve the problem.
Let us look at the problem first from the point of view of the home. We need more education for the mother and the father. In many cases facilities already exist in this country to help them. The tragedy is that the facilities which exist are only partly used. Whether out of ignorance, pride, or a lack of understanding of these very facilities, we see the situation in which those in need are not claiming them, and I should like the Government to bring all the propaganda that they can to bear on this, in the newspapers, and on the radio and television.
At school, I should like to see a new method whereby those children who are receiving free school meals are not known to be receiving them, are not labelled as receiving free school means, for this causes very real difficulties in the school and marks the child out as different from the others.
We also need very much more information about uniform allowances and about clothing grants. These valuable benefits are again under-used. Whether again it is from ignorance or pride, we do not know, but both can be broken down with greater education.

Mr. Peter Archer: Would my hon. Friend agree that the test of need for these purposes varies from authority to authority, and sometimes within departments of an

authority, and that often a headmaster cannot tell what is the test of need for a pupil?

Dr. Owen: I agree, and I think that this is one of the real problems, that we have a whole series of different types of means test. It may be that we have to develop a situation in the welfare services where there is selectivity. I am not opposed to this in principle, but what I wish to see is an equable and fair means test. I think that this has to be done by having a universal tax code system, with everybody being put on it, but this is long-term and not short-term.
Health education is very important. Here, I think, we must face more courageously than in the past the real need to provide family planning advice to mothers. This must be freely available under the Health Service. This is its right place. To put it under local authorities would be a mistake, just to get a short-term benefit.
I think that we must place very much more emphasis on nutrition and on educating mothers about what foods are important and what constitutes a really adequate diet. I pay tribute to those who have gone to live with a family and shown them by practical example some of the real benefits which can come from using the same amount of money. I think that there should be very much more propaganda about welfare foods. In November, 1965, only 5,715 children in families not receiving National Assistance were getting free welfare foods. It looks as though only 4 per cent. of those eligible were getting welfare foods. This is something into which we could well look, bearing in mind the appalling statistics of nutritional standards.
Finally, and perhaps most important, there is the problem of housing. We need many more four- and five-bedroomed council houses for large families. In my constituency too many large families have to buy old-fashioned houses in order to house their large families at even minimum standards, often with high rates. We need very much greater publicity for rates, and, where they exist, rent rebate schemes.
So far, about 660,000 people who were thought to be eligible have not claimed rate rebates. This is an indictment of the system by which the onus is always put


on these people to claim. They have so many different types of claim that they are simply befogged by the whole situation.
We obviously need the emphasis again to be on slum clearance and rebuilding slum schools. All this I think that the Government are doing, but I urge them to give the Minister without Portfolio, whose sympathies we all know are with us, the money to co-ordinate and force through a programme for abolishing poverty and to be not afraid of a greater redistribution of wealth. They should resist any temptation to bring in yet another old fashioned means test, which I believe will result in people losing out on the benefit which is being made available and which would be a retrograde step in establishing family allowances.
Above all, let us resolve that by Christmas, 1967, the incidence of child poverty will be markedly reduced in this country and that a Labour Government will have established their fundamental priorities, for it is at Christmas that child poverty is revealed in all its starkness. Many families dread Christmas. Many families regard Christmas as one of the most distressing times of the year because they have to say "No"—"No" to toys and "No" to good food, and they are constantly faced with their children comparing their circumstances with those of their neighbours. We now want more than sympathy from the Government. We want positive and concrete proposals for these children who live in poverty.

1.52 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I am sure that we all regret that we have such a very short time for this debate. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) for bringing this matter before us at this time. I have promised that I will be very brief so as to give the Joint Parliamentary Secretary adequate time to reply to the debate. I have about five minutes at my disposal. I am sure that we all regret the fact that the Minister herself could not be here today. We recognise her great sympathy in this matter.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not sympathy that we want.

It is action we want in the few months that lie ahead, because this winter could be one of the worst winters that many of these families have known. I hope that we shall have a full debate on this subject after the Recess, because it is possibly one of the most important matters we could be thinking about at this time.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are 300,000 families with incomes below the old National Assistance level, which means that there are at present 600,000 children not receiving the basic essentials of life. We all recognise that all large families, except those who are very rich, have greater difficulties than smaller families. Therefore, it is in sharper contrast even still that those on low incomes are trying to get by in these increasingly difficult times.
The hon. Gentleman said that, nutritionally, they are often at a disadvantage. Their diet is inadequate. Today's newspapers contains more figures showing the inadequacy of diet, not only amongst old people, but amongst the very young. We also know that very often children in large families seem to be at a disadvantage. The perinatal mortality rates are higher in large families. Statistics show that there is a greater incidence of stunted growth and smaller children in larger families. In terms of educational development and academic achievement these children seem to be at a disadvantage. According to some of the statistics which are available, there seems to be a negative correlation between family size and intelligence quotient in the child. This is probably connected with slower development of younger children in larger families because of so many of the economic and social difficulties which they face.
The Crowther Report showed that 42 per cent. of only children stay on at school after 15, whereas only 8 per cent. of children from families of six or more stay on at school after 15. The Robbins Report showed, in regard to children of parents of the same income and social background, that the chances of the child of the small family staying on to take A levels were dramatically higher than the chances of the child from the larger family. The difficulties of housing are so much greater with larger families. These are all things that we urge the Government to see to.
The problem we are talking about is largely due to the low income coming into these families. In spite of the high wages we often point to at present, half the industrial working population earns less than £18 a week. Ten pounds to £12 a week is still all too common, particularly in many of our large nationalised industries. Increased training to increase skills and to advance our industrial development so that we can get a high wage economy is better than bringing in things like minimum wage legislation. In this area what we should be aiming at is to ensure that people can get the skills that give them higher wages and to bring about the economic growth that can make this possible in our society as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman talked about children's allowances. We could debate this question for a considerable time. I remind the House that we have on several occasions in this Parliament, particularly on the Social Security Bill, put forward proposals to help the low wage earning family with a special supplementary children's allowance. We believe that a special supplementary children's allowance for large families below a certain limit should be payable, whether the husband is in work or not. It could be on a sliding scale. It could get over many of the difficulties of the wage stop to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have also brought forward in this Parliament a scheme for an invalidity allowance for the chronic sick and the disabled. We all recognise that some of the most tragic cases are in homes where there is disablement, particularly of the mother. This is why on the last Finance Bill we pressed for special tax allowances in these circumstances. We shall continue to go on pressing these matters.
It is exactly 10 years ago today—on 21st December, the last day of Parliament before the House adjourned for the Christmas Recess—that I took my seat after a by-election. I can remember on that occasion being asked by the Press, because one is always news on these occasions, what had brought me to the House. I remember replying that it was the poverty and the injustice that I had grown up with in Castleford, a mining town in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which had driven me into politics, and

which I hoped will always be my driving force in my political life.
I was told then that the one thing I would learn in Parliament was patience. I have learned some patience, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our patience is now running out. We have been too slow to recognise these problems. It was only in the hard winter of 1963 that this problem of family poverty came to our recognition. This is why we on this side believe that one of the best solutions to this problem does not lie only in cash, important though that is. It depends so very much on having an integrated and coherent policy.
This is why we believe that the Ministries of Social Security and Health should be merged into one Department so that cash and care can be co-ordinated. The Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, passed by a Tory Government, to some extent helped with co-ordination at a local level. The children's committees can now do a great deal to give the sort of help the hon. Gentleman talked about with regard to care—help in the home, education in the home, the health visitor, the welfare visitor, help with family planning, and so on.
We also believe that there should be a definite responsibility on the Government and on the Ministry of Social Security to seek out need, because so many of these people do not know what their rights are. So often we do not know where these pockets of poverty really exist. This is why we press on the Government the need for the co-ordination which we believe would come about by combining the Ministries of Social Security and Health and the ground and by establishing the responsibility to go and seek out need.
We also believe that there must be a research unit in the Ministry so that these problems can be pinpointed as they arise. One of the great tragedies of the past was that we did not realise that this problem was creeping up on us. We have known now for over three years and now is the time for action. There will be many different problems in future and I hope that the Minister will listen once again to our pleas and that this time we shall not simply be told that there will be a review but that there will be some definite action as soon as the House reassembles.

2.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I am grateful to the right hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) for honouring the time limit. She mentioned that she came to the House exactly 10 years ago and that she was inspired to come here, among other things, to fight on this subject. It is just over 10 years since I came to the House and anyone who looks at my background and that of my right hon. Friend will realise that one of the motivating forces which inspired, provoked and directed us towards the House was poverty. We did not simply know of it: we endured it. Our fathers and mothers endured it. My wife and I, when first married, certainly experienced poverty, whether we mean relative poverty or in real terms.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on his choice of this vital subject. I join the right hon. Lady in complimenting him on the cogent way he deployed his case and the manner in which he drew attention to the plight of these families, who are deprived of so much that the rest of us these days take for granted for ourselves and for our children. Like other hon. Members, I think that it is appropriate that, at this festive season, on the last day before we enter the Christmas Recess, we should be compelled to acknowledge the reproach to our prosperous society which these families represent.
I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that, in her Answers to Questions recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister left no doubt in anyone's mind of the seriousness with which the Government view this problem and the importance which we attach to devising means whereby these families can be most effectively helped within the limit of available resources. I assure my hon. Friend that many of the methods which he and the right hon. Lady advanced are being seriously considered, along with many other proposals, by the Government. I also agree with my hon. Friend when he says that there should be a real attack on poverty and all its implications.
I must point out, however, that, when we first took office in October, 1964, we had to face the fact that very little was known about the scale and nature of this problem, the numbers of families living

within any particular definition of poverty, the composition of such families, the factors which caused them to he in that position and so on.
Therefore, to obtain this essential information, we carried out an inquiry in June and July of this year based on a statistical sample of about 2,700 families selected from family allowances records. Perhaps I might say in passing, Sir, that we received an excellent response from the families approached and their cooperation in answering a lengthy and detailed questionnaire will be of great value to all Government Departments concerned with this problem. We are certainly indebted to these families.
The processing of all the material resulting from this inquiry is proceeding as rapidly as possible and it is hoped to publish a full report no later than the late spring of next year. However, we have some provisional figures already extracted which provide us with some essential background information. As my hon. Friend indicated, the inquiry suggests that there are about 160,000 families, including perhaps 500,000 children, with incomes below the appropriate rate of non-contributory benefit, where the breadwinner is in full-time work, or on non-contributory benefit but subject to the wages stop. This figure has been adjusted, of course, to take into account the fact that non-contributory benefit rates have gone up since the inquiry was made. This, incidentally, illustrates how, if we take the current non-contributory benefit rate as defining the level of poverty in this country, improvements in the non-contributory benefit rate have the paradoxical effect of raising the number of families regarded apparently as living in poverty.
This figure of 160,000 is appreciably lower than some earlier estimates have suggested, as they were based on the very scanty evidence which was available at the time.
Nevertheless, I would agree and I think that every hon. Member would agree, that it is much too high for our peace of mind. One can only guess at the extent of deprivation and human misery which these figures represent. But without suggesting that I want to minimise the need for further Government action, it might not be out of place for me to remind the House of some of the ways in which these families can be helped by


existing social services. For example, all school-children in such families have the right to a free school dinner, as well as the free milk available to all school-children. At the most recent count, about 387,000 children were receiving a free dinner, at a cost of about £9 million a year.
Then there is a right to free milk and vitamin supplements if the family includes a child under school age or an expectant mother. These and other services for children have helped to bring about a striking improvement in the general health of schoolchildren over the past 20 years. The latest report of the Chief Medical Officer to the Department of Education and Science shows that, in 1965, the percentage of schoolchildren found to be in an unsatisfactory physical condition fell to 0·38 per cent., the lowest figure on record.
Among the measures already taken by the present Government, the provision for rate rebates is designed to be of particular benefit to householders with large families and low incomes. Fatherless families, who face special problems, have been helped by the improvements in noncontributory benefit and the raising of the widow's benefit and guardian's allowances.
My hon. Friend has spoken particularly of the problems facing families where one or both of the parents are disabled. There can be no doubt that these are some of the saddest cases with which any of us have to deal. But when we receive the full results of the survey to which I have referred, we shall know more clearly how far disablement is a factor in child poverty generally. But the problem of disablement is by no means the same as that of child poverty, though there is an area in which they overlap; and to a large extent they represent competing claims on the resources which can be made available for improvements in the social services field.
The breadwinner who is unable to work is already substantially better off as a result of the benefit increases to which I have referred. For example, a chroni-

cally sick man with a wife and two children aged, say, 9 and 12 years can now receive £10 5s. a week. plus rent and rates, to which additional payments can be added, if, because of his disablement, he has extra expenses not covered by the 9s. long-term addition. Nor is it the case, as is sometimes suggested, that if he is a low wage-earner his benefit is wage-stopped. The wage stop, and I want to make this very clear, has never applied to the chronic sick.
But, of course, we all recognise that much more remains to be done—and that is not in dispute with the Government. In particular, none of us can be indifferent, as my hon. Friend said, to the plight of the family where the wife is incapacitated and is not entitled to either National Insurance or supplementary benefit. My right hon. Friend has assured those who have put the case of these families to her on more than one occasion that the Government are very conscious of the financial needs of all chronically sick people in this country, and these are being very carefully considered in connection with the review of the social services.
We also have to face the fact that we cannot simultaneously do all the things that we would wish to do and for which everyone is agreed that there is an admitted need. But I know that my hon. Friends will agree that the record of improvements which we have already made in very stringent and difficult financial circumstances demonstrates in no uncertain manner the very high priority which this Government give to the strengthening and development of the social services.
In my view, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton has performed a valuable service by highlighting this problem today, and I assure him, and all those who have supported him from time to time both inside the House and outside, that we join with them in assigning the very highest priority to measures aimed at dealing with child poverty, however caused.

SCOTLAND (CADCO REPORT)

2.12 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: Exactly three weeks ago today Board of Trade inspectors published the Report on what I choose to call the Cadco affair. The Press had access to that Report 48 hours before I had, and I protested about this treatment of back-bench Members and got the brush-off from the Government for my pains. I make this comment at the outset, that in cases in which a Member of Parliament can be easily identified as being intimately involved, as I was in this instance, it should surely be within the discretion of a Government Department to treat that Member at least not worse than the Press, and I hope that some action will be taken to ensure that that is done in the future.
May I next address my remarks to the Report itself? Those who have read it will agree that it is at one and the same time a most squalid and fascinating piece of reading, certainly that I have read for a very long time. From the first page to the last it is a concoction of dishonesty, deceit, crime, gullibility and incompetence the like of which has probably never been known in Scotland before.
The present Government have taken certain action to ensure that such a thing will not occur again. The steps taken were outlined by the Secretary of State in answer to a Written Question of mine on 30th November, the day the Report was published. I will not go into the details of that Answer, which is there for everybody to read, but I am not sure whether it fully implements the recommendations found in paragraph 435 of the Report, namely, that the financial standing of those behind a project like this, as well as the viability of the project itself, should be investigated before any contractual commitments are made involving substantial sums of public money, and that one inquiry should be carried out on behalf of all the interested parties on these particular matters.
Be that as it may, and however effective the proposed steps are in preventing any more Cadcos, there are still a host of questions which remain unanswered and which are causing a good deal of public disquiet not only in Fife and in

Scotland, but in the whole of Britain, as my postbag indicates.
The first question with which I wish to concern myself relates to administrative and technical incompetence and/or negligence and/or lack of judgment. The Report does not cast any doubt on the integrity of the officials of the Development Corporation at Glenrothes. No evidence was found of any dishonesty or impropriety in that quarters. But there is a great deal of difference between integrity and incompetence, and between integrity and naïvety or lack of judgment or gullibility.
Like others, I may be accused of being wise after the event. Nevertheless, one cannot help being amazed at the credulity at those who, for instance, attended the Edinburgh Press conference on 28th May, 1963. I ask hon. Members to note the date. It was May, 1963—not the present Government then in power. A Conservative Administration were in power. I say that because we have been subjected to some criticism on the ground that the present Government were responsible. The previous Conservative Administration were responsible for this—and I want to emphasise that point because I shall return to it later.
The Press hand-out at the conference was prepared by a Mr. David Donald, then information officer of the Scottish Council, and it is clear that no attempt was made to ascertain the accuracy of the handout. The most cursory investigation would have revealed it for what it was—a tissue of lies designed to deceive everybody concerned. I will not go into the details. They are all in the Report. But if the Development Corporation at Glenrothes had made any kind of inquiries into the financial standing of the sponsors or the viability of the project by the spring of 1963, they would have discovered that this company, called Royal Victoria Sausages Ltd., had already lost irretrievably over £250,000. In fact, I have seen a figure of £600,000 mentioned in other information that I have seen.
It was subsequent to this that the Development Corporation used an American company in Glenrothes, Beckman Instruments Ltd., to seek to obtain a bankers' reference on the Cadco Co.—the multiplicity of companies called Cadco. Two


replies were eventually received to the inquiries of Beckman Instruments Ltd., dated 10th July and 18th July, 1963. But meanwhile, before the Development Corporation had received those references, they had allowed building to begin, and when they were received they were anything but convincing, as the Report says in paragraph 183:
Surprisingly, neither the executive staff nor any member of the Board of the Development Corporation saw in the replies which the Beckman Instruments inquiry ultimately produced, anything to put them on enquiry.
Far from questioning the financial standing of the companies, building went on at full speed by the Cadco building company—£1 million worth of building in the first stage of the project, and this by a company which had never engaged in any building operations whatever. Paragraph 167 of the Report makes that quite clear. All the technical staff of this building company—indeed, the entire labour force—was recruited locally, I believe some of it from the Development Corporation itself. Despite this, as the Report states, in paragraph 168:
… it does not appear to have occurred to any of the officials"—
officials of the Development Corporation—
to question the competence of Roe, Loraine, Sanders, or Black"—
who were responsible for this venture—
to control and supervise building operations of such substantial size
The story of the building of the piggeries can only be described as a hair-raising fiasco of monumental incompetence. The story is told in detail in paragraphs 161–166 of the Report and it is clear that no technical advice was taken on the design of the piggeries at Glenrothes, although the Pig Industry Development Authority had offered advice. The Authority's advice was rejected. I wonder by whom and when? Did the Development Corporation know that that advice had been rejected? If so, did it know by whom and when it had been rejected?
The result was that the piggeries, costing £277,000, were designed by people who did not know what they were doing. An example is given in the Report. The effluent from 20,000 pigs, which was the planned project, was equivalent to the effluent emanating from a town of 50,000

people. It was proposed by these people who did not know what they were doing that this quantity of effluent should be catered for by the installation of one 9-inch pipe, with an inadequate fall, leading to a sewage tank which was capable of taking only 24 hours' flow of effluent. Imagine anyone thinking that a 9-inch pipe could deal with the quantity of effluent emanating from a town three times the size of Glenrothes itself. There was incompetence at technical and administrative level and there can be no doubt that that applied to the Development Corporation and beyond.
Has any disciplinary action been taken? If not, is any contemplated? It is not sufficient to say that this will not happen again. That will not do. I urge the Minister to be more forthcoming, particularly about the publication of the details of the investigation which he conducted at Glenrothes. As the representative of the people concerned, I have a right to know just where the fault lay in this matter.
I turn to the question of the Scottish Development Department and the Board of Trade. At that time, the responsible Ministers were the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who was the then Secretary of State for Scotland, and the present Leader of the Opposition, who was the then President of the Board of Trade. I sent a note to the right hon. Member for Argyll saying that I would be referring to him and he has apologised for being unable to be here this afternoon. Never at any stage did those Ministers raise any objection or express any doubts about what the Development Corporation was doing or about the way it was doing it.
It seems that both of those Departments allowed the Development Corporation to get into deeper and deeper water, without at any time questioning either the viability of the project or the financial soundness of its sponsors. The actions of Conservative Ministers at that time were in complete breach of the obligations laid on them by Section 12(7) of the New Towns Act, 1946, which states:
It shall be a condition of the making of advances to a development corporation under this section that the proposals for development submitted to the Minister under section 3 of this Act shall be approved by the Minister with the concurrence of the Treasury as being likely to secure for the corporation a return which is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, when compared with the cost of carrying out those proposals".


I assume that those Ministers thought that this investigation would be done by B.O.T.A.C., but there was no reason for that assumption. No application had been made for a loan and even when a belated application for grant was made, and was rejected, the Scottish Development Department ignored the red light that was clearly flashed by that rejection.
Was the Scottish Development Department a quiescent, approving spectator of what was happening, or was it an unwilling agent of the Development Corporation, which was desperately anxious to get 2,000 new jobs in the pipeline before the pending General Election? Did it knowingly take unwarranted risks with public money, or was it completely ignorant of what was going on? Should the charge be that of ignorance, indifference, incompetence, or folly? We have a right to know the truth. The political heads at the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade and the Treasury were Conservative Ministers at that time and they must bear a heavy responsibility for what happened.
I come to what I believe is a much more disturbing aspect of this matter. It concerns the crimes perpetrated in this evil affair. The Report is replete with examples of criminal activities, of which I will give some instances. Bosley & Co., the solicitors in Sussex, were responsible for putting into local newspapers what are described in the Report as fraudulent advertisements, in infringement of certain legislation, designed to attract capital to Royal Victoria Sausages.
The Report goes on to say that this was attributable to
… the ignorance and inexperience of Miss Christy …
who, I understand, was a junior clerk in that solicitor's office. On that account, and because it happened five years ago—in addition to which certain individuals have got their money back—the Report recommends no action. But ignorance on the part of an employee seems to be a flimsy reason for not taking action against the firm, which must surely assume full responsibility for whatever is done in its name.
No criminal charges are preferred and apparently no disciplinary action has been taken by the relevant professional organi-

sation—the Law Society or whatever other body may be concerned; and the Report recommends no action—against Mr. Braidwood, who was then an assistant accountant with Cadco Developments—on the grounds that he was young and inexperienced—or against any of the other subordinate staff who were involved in currency irregularities. I am inclined to agree that action should not be taken against the subordinate staff, some of whom, no doubt honest people, were not aware that they were being led and were leading people up the garden path.
The real villains of the piece, most of whom were at the root of this business, are those against whom action should be taken, although it is said that they are out of reach. Loraine was a treacherous, lecherous character of the worst possible type. Some of these people are within reach and I will come to one of them who is not out of the country. Indeed, he is still in Scotland.
I must preface my further remarks by referring to Parliamentary privilege, something which, by its very nature, must be used sparingly and with a full sense of responsibility by the hon. Member using it. No hon. Member would dare use it either frivolously or vindictively. It is in that spirit that I refer to the part played by Mr. McKee, the group accountant of the Cadco companies. Several specific charges are made against this man in the Report, and I will enumerate them.
First, McKee made a number of false statements to the Royal Bank of Scotland, knowing them to be false, to get an overdraft, which eventually amounted to £460,000. Paragraph 412 recommends that prosecution of McKee, Loraine and Roe should be contemplated. Secondly, McKee was responsible for putting before B.O.T.A.C. documents and accounts, an action which the Report refers to as being
… perhaps a most serious aspect of this whole matter.
Paragraph 422 recommends that his prosecution should be contemplated.
Thirdly, McKee was involved in the misappropriation of large sums, and the diversion of £398,325 from the Cadco Building Company to other sources, and, again, paragraph 426 of the Report


recommends consideration of his prosecution. Fourthly, McKee was knowingly engaged in the infringement of currency regulations, and paragraph 432 gives some details of how thousands of pounds were smuggled out of the country in £10 or £5 notes, secreted between the leaves of a film script.
Altogether, this amounts to a massive indictment of one who is not a subordinate, but who knew full well just what he was doing. In view of that, I find it completely inexplicable that the Lord Advocate has decided that criminal proceedings in Scotland are not warranted, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions has also decided that there is no action he can take at present.
On 6th December I wrote to the Lord Advocate:
I feel I must write to you to express my deep disquiet concerning your decision not to take criminal proceedings following the findings of the Board of Trade inquiry into the Cadco affair at Glenrothes. In view of the comments in paragraphs 408, 411, 421, 422, 425, 427–9 and 432, I am quite unable to understand the reasons for your inaction. I may say my views on this matter arc shared by large sections of opinion in Fife and, I believe, in Scotland as a whole.
I must give notice that I intend to pursue this problem much further. If it is not satisfactorily resolved, I am afraid the confidence of many people in the administration of justice may be seriously undermined.
On 8th December, I received a reply from the Lord Advocate, and I have his permission to quote it. He says:
I have carefully considered what you say, and I have looked again, in particular, at the paragraphs in the report to which you have referred me. It is the invariable practice not to make known the grounds upon which a decision is taken to prosecute or not to prosecute any individual, and you will appreciate that there are good reasons for this. I may say, however, that in a case of fraud I have to consider the whole evidence available, and to decide inter alia whether there is satisfactory evidence of false representations having been made in Scotland to any party with the effect of inducing that party to take action to his loss.
The Cadco case, as you can well imagine, has occasioned me much anxiety, and it was only after a long and exhaustive investigation, and after considering the whole evidence obtained as a result, together with all the circumstances, that I reached my conclusion. But for my decision not to proceed against any of the persons involved, I could not, of course, have agreed to the publication of the Report in view of the fact that it contained statements prejudicial to these persons.

I need hardly add that I should make no complaint at all against your pursuing a matter of this gravity, and if I can be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to let me know.
As a result, Mr. McKee, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Roe and Mr. Loraine and others have got away with it. For one reason or another they all escape punishment for what they have done. The Scottish Development Department, the Glenrothes Development Corporation and the Board of Trade have come out of this shambles unscathed. The only people punished are the ruined contractors, and the workers who lost wages and jobs and who are still awaiting wages they will probably never get. Surely this is the massacre of the innocents.
I am far from satisfied with the situation as it now stands. It seems to me that the logical consequences of the revelations in the Report have not followed. I do not believe that the whole truth has yet been told, nor do large numbers of people in Scotland and elsewhere. When the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill is on the Statute Book, I intend to refer this case to the Parliamentary Commissioner in the hope that he may unearth information within the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, and the offices of the D.P.P. and the Lord Advocate, which is denied to me.
Meanwhile, I would recommend to my hon. Friend that a film be made of the whole sordid story. Never has it been truer than in the case of Cadco that truth is stranger than fiction. If the copyright of such a film were retained by Her Majesty's Government, a handsome profit might yet be made out of this gruesome nightmare.

2.35 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) said that some of the blame for this sorry affair rested on two of my right hon. Friends. If that were the fact, it would be in the Report. It is not in the Report.
My chief interest is in the fate of the sub-contractors to the Cadco Building Company, many of whom live in my constituency, but I would like to ask the Under-Secretary a question about the piggeries, because it seems quite extraordinary that the plans should have been


passed and the piggeries built with a drainage system that was completely ineffective and unworkable. I am told, though I do not know whether it is right, that the pig men's houses that were built, and which are still there, could not be occupied because they had no drainage system. That seems extraordinary, because when I went on the N.F.U. summer outing in 1962—a year before the company folded up—it was known that there was a real drainage problem.
I feel very strongly that the Glenrothes Development Corporation was in breach of paragraph 30 of the Scottish Building Regulations, which particularly lays down that the principal contractor shall not be entitled to obtain another certificate from the architect for a further instalment unless and until he has satisfied the architect, by the production of vouchers or other evidence, that he has settled with the sub-contractors. That does not seem to have been done by the Corporation or, if it was done, it was only partly done.
I feel this all the more because, since the time of this affair, we have moved in Scotland to conditions known as the R.I.B.A. conditions, under which it is possible for the architect to certify that the bill should be paid direct to the subcontractor if he is not satisfied that the main contractor is passing on the money. I therefore feel that in this case that the Corporation has let down those contractors.
Another aspect is the lack of liaison between the Board of Trade and the Development Corporation—and possibly the Scottish Development Department as well. The letter to the Board of Trade of 5th June, which is quoted in the Report said that the company would repay £250,000 by 30th June, and £200,000 by 30th September, from the progress payments that were to be received from the Corporation. In reply to a Written Question yesterday, the Secretary of State outlined the dates of payment which showed that the total payments for the project at Glenrothes were about £766,000. In June, when that letter was written, about £700,000 had already been paid over, so there was no possibility whatsoever of this £450,000 being provided. If there had been liaison between the Board of Trade, the Glen-

rothes Corporation and the Scottish Development Department the matter would have come to a head not at the end of September, but back in June, and some money would have been saved.
It is also difficult to work out from the Report exactly on what date it was known to the Glenrothes Development Corporation that this project was going entirely wrong, but the Report states that a Mr. Clayton went to the Corporation towards the end of August and admitted that the company was in very great difficulties.
The Question answered yesterday shows that £17,500 was paid out on 28th August by the Corporation to the Cadco Building Company. Was this payment made before or after the Development Corporation knew that the Cadco Building Company was insolvent? Here again, we have this £17,500, a big proportion of which could have been paid to the sub-contractors but which was taken up by the Cadco Building Company.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member but this debate has to finish at about 2.50 p.m., and the Minister has yet to reply.

Sir J. Gilmour: I have almost finished, Mr. Speaker.
Was it after this date in August when the Development Corporation knew that the Cadco Building Company was insolvent? If so, this money should not have been paid to the Cadco Company; it should have been retained, to pay the sub-contractors.

2.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Many issues have been raised in this debate and I shall try to deal as swiftly as I can with the major ones. In fairness to the whole position of Cadco, and its whole story, we have to go back to 1963 and the atmosphere of that time. We all know now that it was a great swindle, but it would have been a wise man who said at the time that these people were suspicious and that we had to be very careful about the project.
The year 1963 was one of distress to Scotland. There were well over 100,000 unemployed and, as my hon. Friend for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) knows,


Fife was going through a very hard time. Industrial prospects were bleak, and Glenrothes was struggling to establish a broader industrial base, and in the aftermath of the decision not to proceed with the Rothes pit it would have been difficult to rebuff any new attraction to the new town.
The Cadco project came in 1963 and it was very welcome. The exercise by the public relations people, to which my hon. Friend has referred, was enormously successful. I have here a great collection of Press clippings, ranging from the Scottish Grocer to the Financial Times and embracing all the Scottish daily newspapers. Some important commentators then, perhaps unwisely, welcomed the project as being a great boon and blessing. This is the general atmosphere that we have to recognise, which surrounded not only the Press conference and the Corporation publicly but the officers and members of the Development Corporation principally responsible for making this arrangement with the Cadco people.
I have been concerned in this matter on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State since the Labour Government came to office, and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that he is quite fair in seeking to question Ministerial responsibility. Nevertheless, he must realise that Ministers cannot answer for Ministers in a previous Government. This is a matter entirely for ex-Ministers themselves to decide, as to how they should answer.
I have been looking up the debate on the Crichel Down affair, which took place on 20th July, 1954, and I want particularly to refer to the remarks of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, as he then was, when talking about the fourth category of considerations, concerning the question of Ministerial responsibility in relation to civil servants. He said:
where action has been taken by a civil servant of which the Minister disapproves and has no prior knowledge, and the conduct of the official is reprehensible, then there is no obligation on the part of the Minister to endorse what he believes to be wrong, or to defend what are clearly shown to be errors of his officers. The Minister is not bound to defend action of which he did not know, or of which he disapproves. But, of course, he remains constitutionally responsible to Parliament for the fact that something has gone

wrong, and he alone can tell Parliament what has occurred and render an account of his stewardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, cc.1286–7.]
That applies to present and past Ministers. I do not presume to answer for previous Ministers; it is entirely their prerogative, and it is up to them to volunteer information if they think that it is important.
But that is in relation only to officers of our own Department—the Scottish Office—and not in relation to Development Corporation officials, who are answerable to the Development Corporation. One must be fair and read what is said in the Report about the Development Corporation general manager and other officers, and also the statement made by the Development Corporation quite recently.
I shall not go over the whole history. My hon. Friend has gone over this before, in two previous Adjournment debates, the first answered by myself and the second by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade. When we came to office matters had reached a head. In December, 1964, the Board of Trade appointed inspectors under the Companies Act to investigate the affairs of Cadco Developments Limited and two other companies in the Cadco group. The Cadco Building Company had by that time gone into the hands of the Official Receiver.
The Report, which is a very good one—I am glad that my hon. Friend was sensible enough to fortify his speech with a number of quotations from it—is by no means a whitewashing exercise. It has been carried out by two very good inspectors, who have gone into the matter quite thoroughly.
On the question of Ministerial responsibility, I would add that the inquiry or review which we carried out took place later and that at the material dates the matter was the responsibility of the past Administration. Constitutionally, the then Secretary of State was responsible to Parliament for what happened when he was in office. I do not suggest that he would have been bound to support the action taken by the officials if it had been taken without his knowledge. I leave that part of the case and turn to the part concerning ourselves.
On 1st December, 1964, my hon. Friend raised this matter in an Adjournment


debate and I then told him that I was proposing to invite the Development Corporation to discuss the whole history of the project with me. The first meeting with members and officials of the Corporation took place on 19th December, in the course of which we analysed the details of the course of events as known. These followed a series of meetings in Edinburgh and Glenrothes at intervals up to June, 1965, but as early as February and March, 1965, we had decided to review the arrangements governing the clearance procedure for industrial and commercial projects in Scottish new towns.
We did not apply this just to Glenrothes; we decided to apply it to the three other new towns—and it now applies to the fifth new town.
It is now endorsed in New Towns Memorandum No. 7 as the correct procedure, and it is very thorough—a better tightened-up procedure than existed in the previous circumstances was issued in May, 1965, and subsequently referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his Report and Accounts for 1964–65. We issued this Memorandum in respect of new towns, giving this guidance on clearance procedure. I cannot say that a Cadco can never occur again; no one can. But the chances of a Cadco project ever taking place again in any Scottish new town are very small. The new procedures that we have established are the best that we can devise in human experience so far. We have taken a wide consensus of opinion to arrive at this. The Scottish public is entitled to that assurance.
I think, also, that the whole Cadco affair is a lesson to many officers and other people engaged in new town work and in the attraction of industry not only to Scotland but to other parts of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend referred to the Lord Advocate. The position in Scotland is a little different from that which obtains in England. The Lord Advocate's decision in this matter is final, and I cannot give the House the reasons which he felt were

conclusive in deciding not to prosecute those mentioned in the Report, including Mr. McKee, to whom my hon. Friend has referred. The position of the Director of Public Prosecutions is entirely different. His decision for the moment, is tentative and not by any means final, and it remains to be seen what further developments there may be in this matter.
I have very few minutes left. I am sorry that I cannot comment on the question of the sub-contractors under contract to the Development Corporation and the building company. This is a matter between the two parties which does not involve the Scottish Office. If there is a feeling that the Development Corporation is in breach of contract there is redress in the courts, which the sub-contractors can take. I have had a lot of correspondence with my hon. Friend on this matter and I do not propose to say any more than that.
The new town of Glenrothes had a sharp setback with the decision not to proceed with the Rothes Pit, and the failure of the Cadco project was a considerable blow to it. These were two heavy blows, just at the beginning of its development. Since then we have made every effort to restore the morale of everyone concerned and to try to ensure that the energy with which the attraction of new industry was pursued is continued. In fact, 12 new industrial projects have come to the new town since the Cadco project collapsed. These new firms employ 1,600 people already, and they have a potential employment of 2,250.
In housing and in other ways development is going well, and my right hon. Friend takes an active part in ensuring that this is so. I am sure we all wish the new town success, now that it has got over the intense disappointment of the failure to proceed with the Rothes Pit and this unfortunate affair of Cadco.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping to the time table. May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that this next debate will finish at about 3.42 p.m.

TOURISM, SPORT AND SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENT

2.51 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the subject of the tourist industry, sport and Sunday entertainment. I do so largely in a representative capacity as chairman of the all-party committee on tourism. I have had a number of apologies from colleagues on both sides of the House who have been unable to attend and contribute to the debate. I regret particularly the fact that the representative of the Liberal Party and two of my hon. Friends, who have a particular knowledge of certain aspects of the industry, cannot attend this debate.
The first difficulty that arose in this matter was that there was naturally a flutter in the dovecots amongst the Ministries, because there are no fewer than six Ministries any one of which could equally have dealt with this important matter. This is by far the most important issue because the main objective to which I wish to draw attention today is the need for the co-ordination of policy by the Government in respect of the tourist industry and the proper pursuit of leisure. There is absolutely no co-ordination of any kind between the Departments in respect of any proper cohesive policy for the tourist industry or for the ancillary and equally important subjects of sport, entertainment, culture and, indeed, the pursuit of leisure in the modern age.
I will briefly state the five assurances that I should like to have from the Minister of State, Home Office, which I believe are reasonable because they do not commit her or, indeed, the Home Office as such, save one of them. They are as follows. I ask that the hon. Lady will, together with the other Ministers, consider carefully whether the time is not ripe for a committee of the House of Commons, analogous to the Committee on Nationalised Industries, for example, to he set up for the following purposes: to inquire into and to recommend action and measures designed to promote tourism and to encourage proper leisure pursuits, including the field of sport and culture. Such a committee of this House

would be an all-party committee, of course. I should like to think, too, that to a large degree it would not be very partisan, but that it would embody the immeasurable experience of hon. Members of this House. I think the time has now come for a committee of this kind to be set up.
Secondly, I ask that there shall be a continuing inter-departmental committee of advisers from the Ministry to assist and to set the guidelines for Government policy. Such an inter-departmental committee would, of course, be of the greatest value in advising a committee of this House. I ask that both those matters should receive attention and, I would hope, at Cabinet level.
Thirdly—this is more directly in the hon. Lady's province; indeed, it is directly within the province of the Home Secretary—I ask for an opportunity for this House to debate a Bill from another place, the Sunday Entertainments Bill introduced by Lord Willis, as and when it has received its Third Reading in another place. It does not follow that it would automatically come here, but, having had the widest measure of careful consideration in another place, it is certainly more than opportune that this Measure should then be given time for debate with a view to securing a Second Reading in this House.
Fourthly, I ask for an assurance that we shall have an early White Paper from the Home Secretary on Sunday trading and a promise that after there has been a debate, there will be early legislation to deal with that subject, one hopes in the 1967 Queen's Speech—

Mr. Speaker: Order—

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member obviously knows what I am going to say. He may refer only incidentally to legislation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I realised, Mr. Speaker, that I had been guilty of an incidental transgression. I withdraw the last part of my remarks. May I put it in this way: I should like an assurance that all the matters relating to Sunday trading will be carefully considered at an early opportunity.
Finally, I hope that the gaming laws will he brought up to date, more particularly because of their important impact upon the revenue of the tourist industry.
Dealing with these items in turn, taking the Board of Trade, the difficulty is that international tourism is largely involved and there is little executive power for the Minister of State, Board of Trade here. He is nearly always defeated by the greater power of manufacturing industry. The Treasury is extremely helpful in matters of works of art which are in the particular province of the Treasury, but is is a small province. The Ministry of Education, which deals with sport and with museums such as the Victoria and Albert Museum, is without cognate power. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government deals with some houses, whilst the Ministry of Public Building and Works deals with Stonehenge and other aspects of the subject. The Minister responsible for sport, whom we are delighted to see here, is left with noble words, with a desire for action but with no money and no executive authority to give strength to his elbow. I have no doubt that it is a good elbow; as understand it was an even better foot in the old days.
I think it is fair to say that there are many hon. Members who do not recognise that there is a tourist industry, an industry of sport or an entertainment industry. They regard these as pleasures which are in no sense measurable against manufacturing industry. The truth is that the fourth largest industry in this country and one which could become the largest is tourism. I do not need to go into the figures this afternoon, but they are there for all to see. This is a major industry and I invite the Minister to recognise that It is now practicable to take the view that the tourist industry should have the same yardstick as manufacturing industry.
This involves directly the Board of Trade. It equally involves not only the question of Selective Employment Tax but the abolition of investment allowances and the lack of any investment grants. The extraordinary situation is that there is no capital or modernisation grant available to modernise our hotels, and this has resulted in the complete arrest of all building in the hotel and catering industry.
The situation overseas is in marked contrast. In Switzerland there is a bank to provide merchant banking facilities for tourism. In Italy one may build hotels with capital loans and grants provided by the Government. In Eire one can get a tax-free holiday to enable one to promote tourism. None of these facilities obtain in this country. All of these are matters which I would have thought ought probably to be referable to a committee of this House to consider and to put forward to the Government with a view to inviting action.
I turn from hotels and the catering industry, upon which a great deal has been said on other occasions, to sport. What is the picture here? We find, firstly, that large numbers, indeed, approximately 90 per cent. of football clubs are at present operating on a deficit and in the red. Almost all county cricket clubs are at present in dire financial straits.
Turning to music, we find that classical music badly needs, and receives, some form of subsidy. Theatres find themselves at an acute disadvantage with television. Looking at the other field of entertainment, at gaming, we find that here is a field which is likely to attract suitable revenue and in which tourism could provide a benefit. We find here that there is certainly a sad need for improvement. Right across the field of sport there hangs today the spectre of a lack of finance to provide improvements which are so sorely needed and which are unable to be achieved at present.
Continuing on the subject of sport—I said that it was a question not of words alone, but of inability to take financial action—there is one startling fact regarding the provision of capital. Whereas approximately £15½ million was spent in 1964, the estimate for 1966 is a mere £4 million. Expenditure outside the schools has reached the lowest level since shortly after the post-war period. While it is true that the school provision may continue, we find ourselves with a virtual stop since July, 1965, on all building projects.
Without the executive power resident in the Minister, without anybody to supply separate grants and finance for sport, we are unable to achieve what is basically necessary for improvement. What are these improvements which are most


urgently needed? I list a mere four of them: the need for international sports centres, the need to provide far better indoor facilities for sport, the need to ensure a greater and more adequate provision of swimming pools and, more particularly, of sports halls.
Regarding swimming pools, the attractive report produced by the Sports Council illustrated the fact that today there are only about 500 swimming pools. There are 600 local authorities without any at all, and three-quarters of those that do exist are from 30 to 80 years old. There are only 63 sports halls of over 7,000 sq. ft.
Here is a field of need for facilities which requires the provision of capital. I urge reconsideration in the next year to enable us to get ahead with these projects.
Another important reason for there being a committee of the House as I suggest and an inter-departmental committee available to consider these matters, is that at the moment there are no accepted standards for local authorities to provide a yardstick for them. Furthermore, there are no direct grants in this field. The grants which come under the General Grant Order do not make specific provision to cover these items which I have envisaged as needing direct grant. I therefore feel that this whole matter requires to be taken at a higher level than hitherto.
Regarding the regional sports councils which have been admirably set up, the next stage surely is to ensure that there are local sports advisory councils. This field is one where local authorities could provide a valuable service. In the main, the criteria would seem to be, first, the need of the community for sport and recreation, secondly, the need to develop local facilities; third, the need to ensure in particular that school leavers are able to continue in the participation of sport, and fourthly, with a view to future planning, to collect together the facilities under one umbrella so as to avoid duplication. I believe that action along those lines would go a long way to assist in the proper pursuit of sport and of our leisure. To expect this to fall merely upon the shoulders of one Minister, without any proper co-ordination and with

an absence of finance, is really not a viable policy.
Turning to Sunday entertainment, it cannot be gainsaid that if the Bill from another place comes to this House for consideration it will not have arrived too soon. It is two years or more now since the Crathorne Report, which we had an opportunity to debate, and I venture to say that the House of Commons as a whole, will accept a measure of reform. I have no doubt at all that a Bill of this nature would certainly receive the sanction of this House and would be passed into law, certainly so far as it would affect Sunday evenings. I refer to provision for theatres and Sunday entertainment and for getting rid of the ludicrous anomalies where a person cannot even wear a false moustache for a performance in the evening but he can, sing without it. Whereas at present one can watch the London Palladium on television, one cannot watch the London Palladium performance itself. It seems to me that these are matters which must be remedied at an early date.
We should have an opportunity to deal with them and also to see whether afternoon commercial sport can receive the support of the House. There could be no greater boon to cricket and football than that there should be the opportunity to have commercial sport on Sunday afternoons. Theatres would certainly wish to open on Sundays, but would close on Mondays. The labour situation would be made little worse, if at all.
Regarding Sunday trading, we have had the valuable report of the Crathorne Committee and we await further action. I take the view that it provides a perfectly adequate basis for legislation, but clearly the Government have had second thoughts about it. We wait anxiously to hear from the right hon. Lady exactly what is proposed.
The all-party Committee, as it sits at present, attracts the attention of those of us who are concerned with tourism and seaside resorts. It also from time to time attracts the attention of some other Members. But the tourist industry today and the proper pursuit of leisure in this country is a matter of the closest interest to everybody in this House and the country. The House of Commons all too seldom talks about the pleasures of


life. This is an occasion where if we have suitable assurances from the right hon. Lady they will provide, if I may say so, a Christmas present for the nation, and, I hope, a New Year resolution which will be thoroughly well worth while in the forthcoming year.
That resolution will be substantially reinforced if the right hon. Lady can give the assurances for which I have asked. They would not commit her Ministry; they would merely commit her to saying that the Government will now carefully consider setting up an all-party committee with, one would hope, a strong chairman, to which these questions of tourism, sport, culture and leisure can go, and become co-ordinated for thought and action.
I hope that the Ministries will get together to see whether we can promote something which would be for the benefit of Britain as a whole, of its exports, the provision of better home holidays, which the British Travel Association will try to promote within the next week or two, and at the same time, of the interests of sport, culture, historic homes, museums, and of those many things which at the moment are handled by no fewer than six different Ministries. With such a committee we could have a co-ordinated policy, and I believe that it would be for the benefit of everyone. I do not believe that it would be opposed by anyone.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), whose speech ranged very widely, for raising this matter. I regard his suggestion for an all-party committee as an especially stimulating one. I have no doubt that it will receive very careful consideration by my right hon. Friends.
The debate gives me an opportunity very briefly to raise two matters which are of considerable interest in the City of Manchester. The first concerns the lack of playing fields and sports grounds for many amateur soccer and other teams. I hope to hear by right hon. Friend emphasise today that sport and recreation are regarded as a totality. Our problem here is not so much a lack of facilities as the under-use of facilities

owned by local education and other public authorities. This causes much frustration and I should like to see school playing fields open at weekends and during the school holidays so that people engaged in amateur sport could have access to many excellent facilities which are now denied to them.
My second point relates to the question of Sunday trading. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will recall the debate on 15th February, 1965, on the Report by Lord Crathorne's Committee. I referred then to paragraph 134 of the Report, and I should like my right hon. Friend, if she can, to let me know now whether the Home Office have considered the points which I raised in that debate. If I may remind her, my observations are reported in columns 916–9 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet spoke of the Minister for sport as one of the more deprived Ministers in the present Government. He has certainly been one of the most successful Ministers. The House should not forget that there have been some important sporting achievements during the past year. Thus, if I may say so, the money which has been spent by my hon. Friend the Minister has been a very good investment. Finally, may I emphasise again my hope that we shall have full use for youth generally, at weekends and during school holidays, of all the resources so far invested by local education authorities and the Government in school sports grounds and other playing facilities.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on raising this subject today. He has long taken an interest in it in the House and has done a great deal to promote British tourism in so far as we can promote it in Parliament.
It will be accepted generally, and certainly by the Government and any Chancellor of the Exchequer, that tourism is one of the main ways by which we can earn foreign currency. There is no better way. Tourism is also a two-way traffic. What we lack in sunshine here we have to make up for by the facilities which we offer to the holiday-maker. The kind of holiday we should go for, more than


any other, for the foreigner coming here is the short stay—people coming here for a week or so or even for long weekends—and I am not sure that the British tourist trade is as geared to this as it might be.
For example, our hotels do not give to foreigners coming to this country the same facilities as hotels overseas have long given to British tourists going abroad. British Rail hotels have started to do this; they have now started to accept block bookings at cheaper rates. I hope that this will be copied by many other hotels in Britain.
The Government must do something to help, and I am not sure that they have assisted the hotel trade by some of their actions in recent months. The Selective Employment Tax, bearing as it does on hotels, does not help, and neither has the abolition of the investment grants. I very much hope that the Government will look at these matters again because it is vital that the hotel trade, on which we depend to encourage foreign visitors here, be recognised as playing a most important part in the earning of foreign currency for us.
Something must be done, also, about the British Travel Association grant. The Government subsidise the B.T.A. fairly heavily, but money spent in grants to the B.T.A., in so far as it enables this country to advertise overseas, is money well spent, and it comes back in the form of visitors from abroad.
A word now about the £50 allowance and the £15 sterling which one is allowed to take out of the country. Tourism is a two-way traffic. Obviously, if we are to go into Europe, there must be an open door. There is an open door for British travellers going abroad, and there must be an open door for people to come here. The sooner the Chancellor of the Exchequer removes this restriction—I hope that he will take it off next year—the better. It is becoming clear that it is not really working. People will spend just as much. There is a traffic in "V" forms, as there always is such traffic when restrictions of this kind are imposed. The restriction affects the heavy spender abroad, but heavy spenders are very few. Its removal would, on the other hand, help the general mass of travellers. Overseas Governments

feel that their people are coming here and spending foreign currency with us, whereas there is a restriction on our people spending their currency abroad. I am sure that this is a disadvantage to us, and the sooner it goes the better.
During recent years, tourism has given a big boost to our balance of payments. It can do more in the years to come, and it deserves all the support the Government can give it.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I am very grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. I undertake to sit down in time to give the right hon. Lady the 18 minutes which I believe she wants for her reply.
I wish to express my gratitude and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for raising a subject of vital interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House and the whole country. He said that the tourist industry is the fourth largest in the country. It is, indeed, one of the fastest-growing industries and should not be restrained in any way by Government action. The constituents who are fortunate enough to be represented by the hon. Member are aware of his very keen interest in this matter, which affects them as indeed it affects my constituents.
Tourism is one of our major dollar earners, but over and above that is the fact that in the areas of high unemployment in many parts of the country, including Cornwall, in particular, and also Scotland—I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) is present—tourism is vitally important because it is a mainstay of the economy. It not only produces dollars and employment, but also makes a direct contribution to the welfare of the economy of those difficult areas, which the Government are concerned to assist.
At this moment I am concerned, as are many other hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, that this will not be a happy Christmas for many people in areas like Cornwall. Unemployment there is at an all-time high, particularly in my constituency. In one place in my constituency unemployment is over 13 per cent., and in an area which depends so much on the tourist trade it is tragic


that the effect of the Selective Employment Tax has been to force certain hotels in my constituency to close this Christmas, when they would otherwise have remained open. That must apply to many other areas of the country.
The absence of the investment allowances has prevented the building of new hotels not only in the under-developed areas, but in many of our major cities. London is more fortunate than many provincial areas. Nevertheless, absence of good hotel facilities detracts from opportunities of attracting the high dollar-spenders who are essential to the welfare of the economy. The hon. and learned Member referred to the position in Switzerland, and there are many other countries which provide facilities for the development of hotels, and the money for their building and, in some cases. operation. It is a very sad reflection on the present and past Governments that we have been so slow to recognise this opportunity to obtain additional foreign currency earnings by this means.
The areas which have often been promised the greatest help have, alas, been the worst hit by the present squeeze. I now refer particularly to my own constituency. There is a short sightedness in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attitude. There is not only the loss of overseas currency at present but the tendency for people to be attracted to other countries in the future. Holidays are habit-forming. People who travel abroad tend to visit more and more the one country they like, and there is no doubt that this will have an effect in the long term, as well as the short term, on Britain's tourist trade.
I should have liked to refer to the question of Sunday entertainment which the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall not do so, because I should then encroach upon the time of the right hon. Lady. That is the last thing I would wish to do, because I am sure that those in the tourist industry, especially hotel owners and many thousands of hotel employees who are out of work, are looking to her at this moment for a little light and hope at Christmas.

3.24 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): When the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) gave novice that he would raise the ques-

tions of tourism, sport and Sunday observance, there was a little to-ing and fro-ing in Ministerial circles to decide who would reply to the debate. As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, about six Ministries are involved. But we had a word with him and he said he would perhaps raise the question of Sunday observance more than anything else, and, in any case, the maxim is, "When in doubt always pass it over to the Home Office", so here I am. I shall do my best to reply for the various Ministries involved although, of course, I am more au fait with the things for which my Department is responsible.
At the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman pressed the need for co-ordination, and suggested that there should be a Committee of the House to look at all these matters. He also stressed the need for a continuing inter-departmental committee. I assure him that we have a great deal of inter-departmental co-ordination in these matters already, although perhaps not as formally as he would like. I do not want to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends in any way, but we shall look at his other point about an all-party Committee.
I thought that he was a little less than fair when he spoke of a lack of co-ordination on tourism, sports and the arts. I cannot forbear saying that while we may not have had the co-ordination he would like under this Government we have made a great deal of progress in tourism, sports and the arts, indeed, more than any other previous Government. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, was given special responsibility for tourism. While the hon. Gentleman might feel that my hon. Friend has not as many powers as he thinks he should, this was at any rate the first time a Minister was given specific responsibility for tourism.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I think that the right hon. Lady is not quite right about that. When Lord Erroll of Hale was a Board of Trade Minister, he had a specific responsibility under the previous Government for tourism. He was the first at the Board of Trade.

Miss Bacon: I am glad to hear that. I must say that I had not realised it from the work which was being done at that time.
As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, has been responsible for sport and has done a magnificent job during the past two years. My hon. Friend the other Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, has done for arts what no other Minister has ever done. Credit should be given for what the Government have done in those respects.
Before I deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's main point, I wish to deal with one or two points raised by other hon. Members. First, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), the Government view the better use of school sports facilities as very important, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made many speeches urging that policy. But that is a matter for the local authorities. The Government have no mandatory powers on it. Each of the nine regional sports councils, plus those for Scotland and Wales, has been asked to undertake a survey of all existing facilities including the degree of their use.
The surveys are expected to be completed during next year. It is then my hon. Friend's intention to ask each council to discuss with the appropriate authorities, the local education authorities, the way in which they could bring about the fullest possible use of those grounds.
I am not in a position to deal with all the points raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I noted his points about the British Travel Association, which was set up by the present Prime Minister in 1950 when he was President of the Board of Trade. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has a sort of proprietary interest in seeing what is happening.
I noted what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said about the difficulties in which his constituents find themselves. He stressed the question of the Selective Employment Tax, which has been fully discussed, as he will be aware, during our debates. There is very little that I can add. We realise that there may be some difficulties, particularly in such constituencies as he mentioned.
I have spoken of some of the things which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science is doing in sport. This year has seen the setting up of 11 regional Sports Councils. This is a most important development in co-operation between central Government, local government and sports bodies. The Sports Councils are still in their infancy, but we look to them to do a good job in co-ordinating the various sports activities in their areas. A great deal has been done. Both the Sports Council and the Regional Sports Councils are co-operating with other bodies interested in the open air, such as the National Parks Commission, the Nature Conservancy, and the Forestry Commission.
On the problems of tourism generally, the Government realise that tourism is a factor which is of major significance in correcting our balance of payments problem. International tourism today is big business. In the past two decades our own tourist earnings from overseas visitors to Britain have developed from relatively small proportions to a point at which they go quite a long way to off-setting the still bigger debits for our own people's holidays abroad.
In 1965, the United Kingdom received almost 3½ million visitors from overseas, including those from the Irish Republic, who spent an estimated £193 million. However, I must admit that for various reasons the revenue from tourism, during the last year or two, has not been increasing as rapidly as it has been increasing in previous years. More substantial increases in our earnings will certainly not be achieved without the most strenuous promotional efforts being made.
To this end, the B.T.A. is engaged in carrying out a "Holiday in Britain" campaign at a total cost for this winter of £75,000. It may be small, but it is something. Subject to Parliament's approving the necessary Supplementary Estimate, this will be made up of a special Board of Trade grant of £40,000 and £35,000 subscribed by local authorities.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Presumably the £75,000 does not include expenditure on advertising abroad. If it does, it is a very small amount and it should be considered again. If we are to promote overseas the


attraction of holidays in Britain, ten times that amount will need to be spent.

Miss Bacon: I agree. I am not sure whether that includes the amount spent abroad. But it is a start. I know that if we can afford it it should be more, but we are alive to this problem.
The Prime Minister announced the hotel loans scheme to the House on 20th July. It might be considered to be a comparatively small amount, but it will be about £5 million in the first experimental year.
I come to some of the problems for which my Department is responsible. I refer particularly to Sunday observance, which was raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. Members will no doubt recollect that following the debate on the Crathorne Report last year the then Home Secretary stated that this was a matter on which Parliament should be given an opportunity to pronounce and that, in a matter so closely affecting the individual conscience of Members, this could best be arranged if a Bill were introduced in private Members' time. This is still our view, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no Member who was lucky in securing a place in the Ballot decided to introduce such a Bill.
However, we welcome Lord Willis's initiative in introducing his Bill in another place and thus providing an opportunity for Parliament to consider the question whether and, if so, how best the law on Sunday observance might be rationalised and liberalised. We have made drafting facilities available to Lord Willis, which was in accordance with the undertaking which we gave. But the collective view of the Government is one of neutrality, because we feel that it would not be right in a matter of conscience for the Government to try to impose a view.
Leaving that aside, as the Crathorne Committee pointed out, the existing law about what may or may not be done on Sundays is full of anachronisms. There would b advantage in tidying it up and establishing a single set of rules easily understood by all and of common application to all forms of Sunday entertainment. Sunday sport, whether amateur or

professional, will not flourish unless there is a public demand for it, but the purpose of Lord Willis's Bill is to provide that if the public want to spend their Sunday afternoons and evenings at sport, they should not be precluded from doing so.
The hon. Member asked specifically whether we would be able to give time for the Bill if it goes through the House of Lords. The hon. Member will not expect me to be in a position to give that undertaking today. This is a matter for the Government as a whole. When the Government have given Government time for Private Members' Bills in the House of Commons, the decision has usually been taken after Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill, when it has been possible to see what degree of support the Measure has.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If the Bill received a Third Reading in the Lords, I hope that the right hon. Lady, having discussed the matter with her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, can go as far as to say that the Home Office would certainly strongly invite the Leader of this House to regard it as a proper case for the Government to give time. I quite agree that the right hon. Lady cannot give a Cabinet decision, but can she go that far?

Miss Bacon: I could not go that far at the moment. I might, perhaps, go as far as to say that if a Measure of that kind came before the House I should probably be in the same Division Lobby as the hon. Member. I cannot, however, commit the Government about the provision of time a considerable distance ahead. We had better wait and see what happens to Lord Willis's Bill in the other place.
Broadly speaking, the effect of Lord Willis's Bill is to remove all restrictions under existing Sunday observance laws concerning sport and entertainment on Sunday afternoon and evening and to impose restrictions on Sunday morning only in respect of entertainment and spectator sport that the public have to pay to watch. I am sure that all these things will be discussed at great length when the matter comes before the House of Lords.
Lord Willis's Bill is not concerned with Sunday trading. Sunday trading recommendations are being considered separately by my Department as part and parcel of the much wider and more general review that we are undertaking of the whole of the law relating to retail trading hours generally. We all know that there are anomalies not only in Sunday trading hours, but in weekday trading hours, also. The problem of Sunday trading is best dealt with from the viewpoint of retail trading as a whole rather than as part of Sunday observance.
We are undertaking that review arising from the recommendations put forward in Part III of the Crathorne Report. My Department followed this up with a booklet entitled, "Retail Trading Hours", published by the Stationery Office in 1965. This booklet was sent to all interested organisations and bodies, and we have now received the replies. When I was asked about this matter recently at Question Time by an hon. Member opposite, I said that the replies which we have received show that there is no consensus of opinion on the matter and that it is fraught with difficulty. It is a matter in which it is difficult to get agreement between the various interested bodies.
But we are at present studying the replies that we have, and we hope that we will then be able to produce—I do not want to give any undertaking that this will be in the near future—some kind of legislation arising out of the replies which we have received.
I have not time to deal with the other points—

Mr. Rees-Davies: The White Paper, or whatever is the outcome of this matter—can it be expected early in the new year?

Miss Bacon: Well, I could not say that it could be expected early in the new year. We have received all these replies, as I have said, there are very great and wide differences of opinion among all the various parties interested in this matter. I remember that some years ago I was a member of the Gowers Committee on shop closing hours, in the 1945–50 Parliament. We sat for about two years and produced a Report, and I know the intricacies and the great difficulties which are associated with this problem. I agree

that there are some anomalies which need to be dealt with.
We have had a very interesting debate. My time is up. I can only promise that all the points which have been raised will be noted. While we may not be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on every point, I should like to thank him for raising these matters. They are important matters of which the Government are fully aware and we will do our best to deal with them.

SERVICE MEN'S WIDOWS (ESTATE DUTY)

3.41 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: The title of my Adjournment debate, death duty payable by widows of Service men who died on active service, cloaks the anonymity of the deceased officers' family and also preserves the anonymity of the medical officers who have tendered advice to those concerned, and in this case I am sure the House will allow me so to preserve their anonymity.
This is a constituency case, but it has revealed certain wider issues which, I think, are important not only to Service men generally, but, in particular, to married Service men who may wish to make provision for their wives. I should like, therefore, to develop the constituency case and touch on the other matters as I proceed.
There are certain provisions in our laws which exempt the estates of Service men from full death duty. This exemption lies in the Finance Act, 1952. I think it will perhaps be helpful to the House if I remind the House of the exemptions which are included in Section 71:
Estate duty shall not be chargeable by reason of the death on or after the twelfth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, of a person in whose case it is certified by the Admiralty, the Army Council, the Air Council or the Secretary of State that the deceased died from a wound inflicted, accident occurring or disease contracted at a time…when the following conditions were satisfied, that is to say, that the deceased was a member of any of the armed forces of the Crown or was employed as a person of any of the descriptions specified in the Thirteenth Schedule to this Act"—
which, incidentally, relates to the women's Services—
or…was subject to the law governing any of those forces by reason of association with or


of accompanying any body of those forces and (in any case) was either

(a) on active service against an enemy, or.
(b) on active service of a warlike nature or which in the opinion of the Treasury involved in the same risks as service of a warlike nature,.


or that the deceased died from a disease contracted at some previous time, the death being due to or hastened by the aggravation of the disease during the period…when the deceased satisfied the conditions aforesaid.
As far as Parliamentary drafting goes, that seems fairly clear.
One of my constituents is the widow of a Royal Air Force officer who died in August, 1964. As his sole executrix she instructed her solicitors to apply for the exemption under Section 71 of the Finance Act which I have just quoted. Her solicitors applied on those grounds in the terms that they were making an application for a grant of probate under that Section and for a certificate that the deceased died of a wound inflicted, an accident occurring or a disease contracted at a time when he was a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown.
On 2nd November, the application of that firm of solicitors was refused by the Ministry of Defence on the ground that, in recommending the remission of death duty on the estate of a deceased officer or airman, the Secretary of State is bound by Section 71. That provides for exemption where it can be certified that a deceased person died from a disease contracted when he was a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown and was on active service against an enemy or on other service of a warlike nature which, in the opinion of the Treasury, involved the same risk.
For the purpose of this Section of the Act, active service against an enemy was deemed to cease on 31st March, 1963, and, since it has not been possible to relate the cause of the flight lieutenant's death to a day within the relevant period, he cannot be considered as coming within the scope of this Section.
That was a blow to the unfortunate widow. In his service her husband's means consisted of his salary and a life policy which he had taken out. In January, 1965, the widow was told by the Ministry of Pensions that she would not be granted a war widow's pension

either, as the Minister did not consider that her husband's death was due to or hastened by a wound attributable to his service, nor that it was due to or hastened by the aggravation by service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or a rose from his service.
His widow appealed against the decision of the Minister and adduced in her support the opinion of a distinguished physician. That was that the flight lieutenant's death had been caused by a heart condition which had been aggravated by his service in the Air Force.
In response to that, on 1st October, 1965, his widow received a letter, which reads:
I refer to your appeal to these Tribunals and now write to inform you that I have today heard from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that they have now accepted that the death of your husband was substantially hastened by service, and an award will be authorised in due course. As this disposes of the grounds of your appeal it has been struck out and I have so informed your representatives, the Officer's Association and the firm of solicitors who I understand are interested in your case.
However, the Treasury still refused to grant exemption or partial exemption from death duties on the deceased officer's estate. That has hit his widow very hard, because she is now deeply concerned about how she is to bring up the child of the marriage.
The objections raised by the Department concerned have all hitherto hung on the definition of "active service of a warlike nature." It seems to me that this debate can be more widely useful if the Ministries concerned will use it to redefine what "service of a warlike nature" consists of.
The 1952 Finance Act is now about 14 years old, and the nature of the actions in which our forces are engaged have changed. It seems likely that, in the next decade or so, their character is likely to change again. Broadly speaking, all the Services are, ipso facto, engaged upon activities of a warlike nature. After all, that is why they are there. In times of national emergency, they are immediately engaged in war. Until then, their services must be of a warlike nature.
The deceased officer was engaged with the Royal Air Force at Laarbruch in Germany immediately before his death.


He was then a flight lieutenant and the pilot of a bomber in a force which was standing by as part of the N.A.T.O. forces on what is known as "quick-readiness alert".
It is understood that the squadron in which he was serving was always to have certain planes available during the day and night, ready to take off at an instant's notice, armed with atomic bombs, presumably to meet an attack on the N.A.T.O. forces. This seems to me to involve service of a warlike nature if nothing else, and other people think so, too. The Minister may wish to express the Government's view on this, and I am glad to give him the opportunity to do so.
In a letter to me dated 17th February of this year, the Minister's noble Friend in another place set out the qualifications for exemption from Estate Duty under this section. He said:
…Flight Lieutenant … would have:

(i) to have been engaged at the time of his death on.

(a) active service against an enemy or
(b) on other service of a warlike nature or which in the opinion of the Treasury involved the same risks as service of a warlike nature or

(ii) to have contracted heart disease at a time when he was engaged on such service or
(iii) to have died from a disease contracted beforehand which was aggravated during a period when he was engaged on such service."


In writing that the noble Lord does not seem to have appreciated that the widow was claiming exemption on the ground that her husband's death was due to disease contracted beforehand while engaged on a service of a warlike nature, and this case stands or falls on whether or not the officer's heart condition was aggravated by his service with the Royal Air Force.
It must, I think, be accepted that when he was accepted for service with the Royal Air Force he was 100 per cent. fit. He entered Cranwell from school, and was commissioned into the Royal Air Force. Thereafter there are continuous medical records of his life. He was graded I in 1946, when he was 18, and he died when he was 35. The Department claimed that there was nothing in

his medical reports to show that his health was affected by his service. I think that it is here that one gets a little puzzled by the attitude taken by the Department.
It is fortunate that I have been able to obtain a copy of the man's entire medical record while in the Service. I am a lay-woman, and I have no medical training, but on looking through these records I was struck by the behaviour of the officer's blood pressure readings throughout his Service career. When he was 18, in 1946, he had a medical examination, but no blood pressure reading was recorded. In 1947, when he was 19, he had another medical. His blood pressure readings were 130 for the systolic reading, and 70 for the diastolic reading. Not having had any medical training, I have naturally consulted those who have, and I am relying on their advice for the comments that I make now. I think that these comments are valid.
In 1948, when he was 20, he had no medical. In 1949, when he was 21, he had one. His blood pressure readings then were 128 for systolic, and 76 for diastolic. There is nothing in those readings to lead one to suppose that there was anything wrong with or strange about a man of that age. It was not until he was sent abroad for three years, from the age of 21 until 1953 when he returned that things began to behave erratically. In 1950 when he was 22 he had a blood pressure reading of 120 for the systolic and a reading of 94 for the diastolic reading. The significant figure here is the diastolic reading. The doctors who have advised me on this have both commented on the leap that this reading shows over the previous year's reading. By the time he had his next medical, which was in the same year, it had fallen to 76.
In 1951, when he was 23, it had climbed again to 80. The really serious jump was in 1952, when he was 24, when his systolic reading was 110 and his diastolic reading was only 44. It had completely collapsed and his systolic reading was low for a man of his age. In 1953, when he was 25, the systolic reading had jumped from 110 to 140, which was too high for a man of his age, and the diastolic reading, which had previously been 44, had suddenly risen to 75.
This is not satisfactory behaviour for a blood pressure reading. What is worrying is that throughout the course of his career this man's medical officers never thought of giving him an electro-cardiograph. He returned to this country from his tour overseas, which consisted of high-flying Sabres: he was a fighter pilot. His blood pressure readings remained stable until he was sent abroad then. Then, after a short time, he unfortunately died.
Here again it is necessary to look at the comment of the Ministry of Defence and to quote it again:
During the twelve months before his death, the Flight Lieutenant was a pilot in a low-level Canberra strike squadron. As such he was frequently required to practice a method of weapon release which involves flying at high speed at ground level and then pulling up into a loop with a roll off at the top. The Canberra is a bomber which was not designed for this technique and the manoeuvre is most demanding, both mentally and physically, for the crew. The Flight Lieutenant was flight commander and authorising officer. In this capacity, in addition to his flying and secondary duties, he was required to spend every third day in his squadron operations room to supervise the flying programme. This duty started at 0800 hours and ended at 1800 hours, although if night flying was in progress he would probably have worked longer hours. Short breaks were, of course, allowed for meals, but this was a hard day's work by any standards. He was also required to fulfil a standby duty, which involved a two week period every six weeks working on a 24 hour on and 24 hour off shift system, living in special accommodation at 15 minutes readiness to fly. Apart from this, during the previous 12 months he had completed
some 200 hours flying, 19 simulated bombing attacks, 62 shallow dive bombing attacks, and 23 air to ground firing attacks. This document says that
His job involved considerable pressure for most of the time.
I will not continue to read out the list, but by any standards this man was carrying an enormous load of responsibility and was being subjected to physical stress in a plane which was not designed for the job he was doing. Yet this was a man who had displayed, through his blood pressure readings, a cardiovascular disturbance at a time when he was on active service within the meaning of the act before 1953.
This raises one or two questions of wide importance to all our Service men. I put them to the Chief Secretary, although I appreciate that he is not in

a position to answer them now. This is something which needs seriously considering. I do not expect him to be able to answer these questions today.
In so far as the medical aspects are concerned, when a Service man who has, by the nature of his service, been subjected to a stress of an unnatural kind and whose blood pressure readings behave erratically afterwards, is he given an electro-cardiogram? Why is this machine not regularly in use by the R.A.F.? As the U.S.A.F. regularly uses this machine and the R.A.F. will soon be flying U.S. planes, will it become the normal practice for the R.A.F.? On death duties exemptions, what is the current definition of "service of a warlike nature"? When was it redefined? Thirdly, in view of the constantly changing nature of the actions of Her Majesty's Service, do the Government intend to review the conception of "an enemy"?
I know that this has been a fairly detailed case to put to the right hon. Gentleman and I accept that he cannot be expected to answer some of the more specific and detailed medical questions which I have posed, but I would ask him to ask his right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will not review the case of this unfortunate flight lieutenant's death, especially in view of the evidence of cardio-vascular disturbance before 1953, which his blood pressure readings so clearly show on his medical records.

4.1 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The three detailed questions which the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) put to me about the use of electro-cardiograph, and on which she kindly said that she would not expect an answer now, I will be glad to do as she asked and write to her as soon as I have the information. On the main question which she put, I would say to her that I hope she will understand that, although what I say is dictated by considerations of accuracy, I have every sympathy with her constituent and her present state and every recognition for the gallant service which her late husband gave to this country. There is no question of that.
The reason that every review of this case has come to the same answer is that there is a major distinction to be


drawn between the circumstances under which a pension is granted and those under which exemption from Estate Duty lies. It is this major distinction which the hon. Lady absolutely fairly described, but did not concentrate upon. The hon. Lady at times referred to "active service" and at others to "service". These are very different things.
I would, first, of all explain the reason behind the exemption from Estate Duty. It is not as the hon. Lady thought. She referred to the widow receiving the information that there would be no exemption and said that that was a blow, or that the widow was very hardly hit. Therefore the hon. Lady is contemplating that the purpose of the exemption is the relief of hardship. This is not so and is not intended. The idea of exemption from Estate Duty when an officer dies while engaged on active service—is killed in action—is that it is wholly repugnant to the State to think that, not only has he lost his life, but that because he has lost his life in the service of his country, Estate Duty should also be collected. Therefore, Estate Duty is completely remitted.
The hon. Lady will realise immediately that this means that those in the greatest need, because they are the poorest, get the least and that those of minimum need, because they are the richest and their estates are the largest, get the most help by being exempted completely from Estate Duty. Therefore, this has nothing to do with hardship but with the sense that it would be horrible and wholly repugnant to impose Estate Duty in these circumstances.
These circumstances did not apply in the case of the hon. Lady's constituent's husband. I will follow the hon. Lady and refer to no names. This gallant officer was not killed on active service. He was not engaged on service of a warlike nature. He was engaged on "service". Because the Government, as the employer, naturally wants to treat every employee as a good employer should, they decided that it was proper that a pension should be paid because this officer had, as a medical examination showed, become entitled to a pension on the conditions on which a pension is payable. that is, the deterioration of his health while on service.
That is absolutely right, but the conditions for a pension and the conditions for exemption from Estate Duty are two very different things. It does not follow that relief under one heading will bring exemption under another. In this case the officer was not on active service and was not engaged on duties of a warlike nature during the relevant period. The hon. Lady asked me, "What are the duties of a warlike nature?" The essential condition is that there shall be a hostile element present the whole time—a danger of being shot at, or shot down in an aeroplane, for example. Recent examples were in Borneo and Malaya. Those were cases in which there was a real risk to life in the sense of being shot at by an enemy.
The hon. Lady made it clear that this was not the case during what I and the medical examination call the relevant period. The officer was not engaged in duties of a warlike nature in the sense that he was not in danger of being shot down or shot at during the whole of this period. Although the disease was aggravated in a sense such as to justify a pension, it was not a condition which satisfied the terms of the 1952 Act. I make no party point, but this Act was brought in by the Government in power at the time and it has been accepted by every Government since. As I say, this condition did not satisfy the terms of that Act.
Although I look at the case with every possible sympathy, and am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing it forward, I cannot accede to her request. She has done a real service in enabling me, on behalf of the Government, to explain the essential difference between these two kinds of relief. I have been able to explain that Estate Duty exemption is granted for entirely different reasons from those in the grant of a pension.
In such cases, of course, we are ready to look at any new evidence which is proffered. If any hon. Member feels that there is a miscarriage of justice in such a case, which engages everyone's sympathy, we shall certainly look at it with the greatest possible care. But the facts having been so clearly established, I see no likelihood of being able to alter the decision which has been taken in this case. This officer became entitled to a pension but he is not entitled—because of the absence of duties of a warlike


nature and the absence of a hostile element—to relief from Estate Duty.
I am, therefore, sorry that I cannot help the hon. Lady as much as I should like to have helped her on grounds of human sympathy.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for the next debate, I want to thank the House for co-operating in sticking to the time-table today. The next debate will run until five o'clock and the Minister who will reply to it will rise at about twenty minutes to five.

DECIMAL CURRENCY

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: May I start, Mr. Speaker, by echoing what you said. Because of this I am able to have the full time for a debate on a subject which I am sure the House regards as extremely important.
I applied for this debate before the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was issuing a White Paper on the decimalising of the currency. I applied for it because I considered that it was a very important question. It has now become a highly topical question, too. As far as I know, since the Government announced the date for decimalisation as February, 1971, and showed a preference for one system, this is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss decimal currency. There have been announcements from time to time but no debates.
May I make it clear that I am strongly in favour of the decimalisation of the currency. That is why I am extremely concerned that the best system should be chosen. In the White Paper last week the Government indicated that they favoured the £-cent-½ system, but I am glad to note that it is plainly stated in the White Paper that this is subject to Parliamentary approval.
There has been no opportunity hitherto to discuss this subject, although it is a vital question to consider which system, the £ or 10s. unit, should be adopted. I will come to a comparison of the systems later. The decision is one of major importance because it affects the daily lives of the whole population, and I trust that there will be a full debate in Par-

liament on the White Paper sometime after the Christmas Recess. I do not expect today a fully reply of substance from the Chief Secretary, because I recognise that there must be a full debate later. However, I want him to confirm that there will be such a debate and to give certain assurances.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to assure us, first, that no action has yet been taken which would prejudice the decision between the two systems and that, secondly, no action will be taken in the weeks or months before Parliament has fully considered the matter which would prejudge the issue. For example, will he confirm that a go-ahead has not been given to machine manufacturers or others on the basis of the £-cent-½ system? Will he give an assurance that no work has been started at the Royal Mint for coinage of one system which would not be usable for the other system?
I ask these questions for two reasons: first, because it would be a deplorable case of by-passing Parliament on a matter which will, in due course, closely concern every citizen in the land, and, secondly, because it would mean that manufacturers would be financially committed to one system even if they preferred the other. Again this would be inexcusably prejudicing the final decision.
I have no wish or intention to delay decimalisation. It will not be introduced for another four years and we must remember that in South Africa, for example, only two years' notice was given between the choice of the unit and Decimalisation Day—D Day—and in that case the 10s. unit was chosen.
All informed opinion is agreed that the issue is between the two systems I have mentioned, one based on the £ and the other on the 10s. unit. The Government favour the £-cent-½ system. But this is not pure decimalisation, for it includes the fraction of a ½d., which would be equivalent to 1·2d.; and this, the smallest unit in the proposed system, would be required for a least a generation; that is, unless there is runaway inflation. The only excuse given so far for the fraction of a ½d. is that it will eventually disappear—hardly a commendation for such a system.
The Halsbury Committee reported more than three years ago and found the choice between the two systems an


extremely difficult one. However, the Committee narrowed the question, having considered 25 systems, to the choice between these two, and the Committee split in a decision on the two. Four, the majority, favoured the £ system, while two, the minority—who put in a report of dissent—favoured the 10s. unit. I pay tribute to the Committee for the admirable job it did, the immense study it made and the many helpful recommendations it put forward about the carrying out of decimalisation. But on the vital question of the choice between the two systems the Committee was divided.
It is significant that the minority—the two in favour of the 10s. unit—consisted of the industralist and the businessman, the head of a department store. They were men familiar with cash transactions and with the problems arising for industry and commerce. The other four were a scientist, a professor of statistics, a banker and a trade unionist. As I say, they all did a fine job, but on this point the whole Committee said that the choice was a matter of judgment.
It is also significant that at the Press conference on 23rd September, 1963, when the Report was published, it was clear from questions that the members of the Committee were five to one in favour of the 10s. unit, on the basis of efficiency and of its domestic use in Britain. It was clear that substantial weight had been given to the international aspect of retaining sterling, and of having no doubt abroad about its position, and that this was what had led to the majority Report. It has since become clear that what is called the international argument has less weight than was then given to it. Indeed, paragraph 12 of the White Paper, issued this month, states that this argument is not in itself decisive. The minority Report in favour of the 10s. unit contains very cogent arguments that have still not been answered.
The Chancellor has thrown out challenges in the last few days, and I and others will gladly take them up. Paragraph 17 of the White Paper states that powerful reasons would be needed to change to the 10s. unit. Those reasons exist as I shall show. Further, on a television programme on 12th December the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

Those who don't want the £ have got to prove it.
He must not be surprised if he receives a vigorous response to his challenge.
There have been changes of view since the Halsbury Committee reported, and many, both in the general public and in various trades and professions, are only now looking at the question, although they will themselves in due course be greatly affected. The Government must not regard this matter as settled.
On 1st March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House in a general economic debate the decision on decimalisation and the date for its operation. I would remind the House that the General Election date had just been announced, and the debate followed the course of criticism or defence of the Government's general handling of the economy. It was not concerned with an announcement about something that would happen in five years' time. Naturally, therefore, no one reverted to currency decimalisation during the debate.
The Government were then in no way committed, and I remind the House, again, that in the same speech—only a few minutes earlier—the Chancellor announced a mortgage option scheme. A few weeks later that was withdrawn, and it has reappeared only this month in a quite different form. This question of currency is not, as far as I know, a party matter, or at all political, and if, following that earlier announcement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to reconsider the matter, he need not in any way lose face if, on that further consideration, he decided on the 10s. system.
Although it is not a political subject it is none the less essentially a matter for Parliament, because it affects the shopper, the passenger, the bus conductor, the housewife, the cashier and the consumer in general. With the £-cent-half-system there is a fraction and there are three units instead of two. In its Report the Halsbury Committee translated the prices of 1962 and found that no less than 40 per cent. of the prices then existing would involve a fraction. I believe that the percentage is still broadly the same. This means that 800 million transactions a week would involve the fraction.
At present the halfpenny is involved only in about 11 per cent. of transactions.


Moreover, during the transitional period—which is to be about two years—the present currency will be circulating with the new currency. Under the 10s. system there would be fewer new coins. No wonder that organisations representing consumers and retail and distributive trades organisations strongly favour the 10s. unit, as do transport undertakings and many others.
I want to say a word about banks and large financial institutions. They work mainly on paper—with cheques, clearing and accounting. Currency is used only in a small way. It is already clear that they would not use the half-unit at all if it were introduced; it would not affect any of their paperwork. Further, in their non-currency work the banks would change to decimalisation and the new decimal currency—with cheques and accounting—on D-day. They would not be bothered with two currencies during the transitional period.
It must be borne in mind, if some of the large financial institutions show a slight preference for keeping the £, that they will not suffer all the inconvenience they will not suffer all the inconveniences and exasperations of having to deal with a fraction, or with old and new currency at the same time. But outside their doors people will be wrestling with fractions on the buses and at the newspaper stands on the street corner. This will be a sad outcome after London Transport Executive has recently successfully eliminated the halfpenny from its fares.
Such large financial institutions might be influenced by the international standing of the £, but if decimalisation is announced under a 10s. system, with four years' notice at a definite time, no one can possibly imagine that this will amount to devaluation. Sterling has survived more perilous vicissitudes than this during the last two years. The Government have raised the objection that there would be difficulties in choosing a name for a 10s. unit.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): indicated assent.

Mr. Campbell: The Minister nods his assent. I do not believe that there will be difficulty. What is important is to choose a name which has a distinctive initial, which could not be confused with the

initial of some other major currency. I am not wedded to any particular name, but I propose, as a suggestion, the "Noble". It would be the Noble sterling.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Not Michael.

Mr. Campbell: This has an excellent antecedent, in that it was suggested in 1696 by Sir Christopher Wren—a man who was well acquainted with practical mathematics and had a very sound sense of proportion, as his work will remind our successors for many years.

Mr. Diamond: Notwithstanding the hon. Member's statement about there being no difficulty in choosing a name, the first and immediate response of his mention of a name was "Not my choice".

Mr. Lubbock: No. What I said was, "Not Michael."

Mr. Campbell: That is the kind of misunderstanding that has bedevilled the whole subject. I was more actuated by Sir Christopher Wren than by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. John Tilney: Would my hon. Friend also agree that the noble was used in this country long before the days of Sir Christopher Wren?

Mr. Campbell: Certainly. I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
The point that I was coming on to in connection with the suggestion of 270 years ago was that it was a decimal currency that he proposed. The proposal was for a noble divided into 100 parts—no fractions or anything like that for Sir Christopher Wren. He was an architect and he had a sound knowledge of practical mathematics.
The transitional period will be the most testing, and the ease with which the change-over can take place is an important factor in the choice of systems. There is no doubt that the 10s. system is the easier and the most practical one. The first reason is that there would be fewer new coins. Under the £-cent-½ system the 6d. and the half-crown must disappear because they would become fractions. Under the 10s. system the 6d., the shilling, the florin and the


half-crown can all stay as needed. One or two of them can be dropped if required, but they can all stay during this transitional period. The ones that would remain would have new markings and the original coins would gradually disappear.
This would be of immense value in all vending machines and meter operations, because similar coins will mean very little if any alteration, and it has been calculated by the vending machine association that the change to the £-cent-½ system would cost as much as £10 million, which raises the whole question of compensation. Of the coins under the 10s. system, only two new coins are required. Under the Government's system four new coins are proposed.
As regards bank notes, I do not believe these matter very much because their life is, in any case, very short. They circulate only for a short time. But the £1 note can clearly continue during the two-year transitional period and would be worth two nobles.
Then there is the question of what the Halsbury Committee called associability. Here the 10s. system has clear advantages. The shopper can see at a glance the close approximate value of an article compared with the shillings to which he has been accustomed. For example, a price of 15s. becomes one unit 50, and under the Government system it becomes 75 cents. Anybody who has been trying to associate fahrenheit and centigrade over recent months will appreciate the advantage of this. It means that the shopper and the housewife can assess prices and compare them quickly.
Then there is the point that there would be no fractions. The fraction would he a bugbear to trade, services and transport. There would be long queues and frustrations. I should not like to be receiving money at the entrance to a football match between Celtic and Rangers during the transitional period.
Let us also consider the increase in the price of a newspaper. To avoid the fraction the price would have to go up by 2·4 of a penny which, even in 10 years' time, one hopes will be far too much. Bus fares would suffer from the same difficulties. Any change which avoided the fraction would have to be by at least 2·4 of a penny.
I draw attention to Appendices 8 and 9 of the Halsbury Committees' Report referring to experiments which were carried out in lifelike conditions under the auspices of the Medical Research Council. The 10s. system was mastered much more quickly and the transactions were carried out and change dealt with more easily. The General Post Office favoured the 10s. system in its evidence to the Halsbury Committee.
Then we come to the argument about the "heavy" unit. The Government say in the White Paper that a "heavy" unit is to be preferred. Paragraph 14 says that other developing countries have major units of lower value but that it is hardly likely that if they were starting afresh with a new system they would deliberately choose "light" units. But this is simply not so, and it is misleading. South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand have all decimalised very recently and have all chosen the 10s. unit. On the television programme on 12th December, Australia and New Zealand were referred to and quoted as supporting the £ system. But, of course, they are exactly the opposite, because they adopted a 10s. unit.
The United States dollar is worth about 7s. 2d., and this is giving no trouble to the United States. It is unlikely to do so even in Texas, where everything is big and where, we understand, there is a lot of money. The dollar is not regarded there as being too light. France, in a recent revaluation, chose a unit worth about Is. 6d. in our money as the main unit.
The Chancellor says that he is planning for 1,000 years. I believe that that is faulty, and is part of the trouble. He may have said it light heartedly, but he ought to plan for from 100 to 200 years, and make sure that we have the really best and efficient system for that.
Some of the bodies which supported the 10s. unit are the General Post Office, the Ministry of Social Security—its predecessory gave evidence to the Halsbury Committee to that effect—British Railways and the London Transport Executive, together with the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association, retail and distribution trades representative organizations—which includes Marks and


Spencers and Messrs. Sainsburys—organisations representing consumers—the National Chamber of Trade, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Co-operative Union, the Gas Council, and the Automatic Vending Machine Association.
This matter will impinge on every citizen. The users of coins must be considered, especially cashiers and others dealing with coins in their jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that we gained a bit of time by the restraint of others. There are still other hon. Members who want to join in the debate.

Mr. Campbell: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am drawing to a close. There are other bodies who are concerned in all these matters, and the general public should look at this question now and make their views clear to the Government. It is of the greatest importance that the change-over should take place as easily as possible. Apart from reducing and averting dislocation, we must preclude antagonism growing, as a result of exasperation, to this and other changes to the metric system which we ought in due course to carry out. Moreover, it is surely unsatisfactory to build anything into the economy, like the fraction, which would be improved by its disappearance, with inflation. I would deplore this.
There are powerful reasons for adopting the 10s. unit rather than the £. The Economist last Saturday said:
Having finally decided to switch Britain to a decimal currency, the Government is proposing to do it in the worst possible way.
I would also commend for the right hon. Gentleman's reading comments in the Financial Times. Neither of these papers would say anything that would endanger sterling or put it at a disadvantage. They would be very conscious of any risk of that kind.
As more people become aware of the choice, the issues, and the likely effects, there will be increasing support for the 10s. system. I warn the Chancellor—and this is my final sentence—that he could get into the position, say in a year's time, when most of the country had woken up to what is proposed and would be against it, and by then he would find it far more difficult to change.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) has done the House and the country a great service in raising this subject, because it is a matter of very great regret that although the Halsbury Committee reported some years ago there has never yet been a full-scale debate in the House on the question of decimal currency. The Government should have found time for it, hut, as they did not, we are very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for doing so.
As the Chief Secretary knows, I have always been a wholehearted advocate of decimal currency. Indeed, I put it into my first election address in 1962, to the annoyance of my agent, who thought it was not a very important matter. Since I was elected, I have always been very concerned with this question and have pressed the Government to come to a decision. I am delighted that they have done so, but I agree very much with what he has said on this question, that a mistake has been made by the Government in choosing the £ as the major unit rather than 10s.
I endorse every word the hon. Gentleman said about the opinion of responsible bodies in this country having an interest in the conversion, which are almost unanimously in favour of 10s. as the major unit. I see the Chief Secretary shaking his head. Has not he heard of the opinions of the bodies to which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred, some of the most authoritative bodies on the subject? I shall mention one or two more—the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Consumer Council, and the Committee of Retailers on whose behalf Mr. Ramage appeared on the television programme to which reference has been made. The hon. Gentleman has already quoted the opinion of the Automatic Vending Machine Association.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out, also, that Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which have recently converted or decided to convert to the decimal system each decided in favour of the 10s. unit. In addition to considering the advice given by the Halsbury Committee, has the right hon. Gentleman looked at some of the arguments which were advanced in those countries in favour of the 10s. unit?


In the limited time at my disposal, I shall make only one quotation, this coming from the Report of the Decimal Currency Committee of Australia which reported in August, 1960:
The inclusion of a half-cent does weaken the decimal principle or could, in certain circumstances…amount virtually to a three-decimal system.
This is an extremely important criticism which is equally valid in this country because, in our domestic situation, we face exactly the same problem as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa did.
The only difference between our situation and that of the Commonwealth countries is the so-called international case for the £. The Chancellor may not attach much importance to this in public. He said in answer to Mr. Mocatta, on the television programme, that he did not consider that it was of overriding importance. But much was made of it by the Halsbury Committee, and I think that one can safely say that, if it had not been for the advice of the Bank of England, the Halsbury Committee would have unanimously, or by five to one, come down in favour of the 10s. system.
Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the evidence submitted by Mr. Wills, which was quoted in the Financial Times of 25th May this year, in a very penetrating article by "Lombard" headed, "The Story behind the Decimal Blunder"? Here is a quotation from the article:
As Mr. Wills put in his letter to the Chancellor, while at all other points the Chancellor took detailed evidence and conducted thorough research, in this respect no attempt was made to test the validity of the assertions that were made as to how foreign holders of sterling would react to the abandonment of the £ as the major unit'. 'Certainly,' he adds, foreign financial opinion was not sought by the Committee'.
How is this curious fact to be explained? The short answer seems to be that the Committee accepted without question the Bank of England's contention in evidence that there was nothing to he gained by taking evidence from foreign bankers on the international case for the £ because, while some would favour retention, others would minimise its importance, so that in the end an act of judgment would still be required'.
This seems to me to be an extraordinary omission on the part of the Halsbury Committee, and a most important one

considering that, as I say, the international case was probably instrumental in bringing the Committee to take the decision in favour of the £.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred to the question of associability, to which the Halsbury Committee attached great importance. He gave one example of a sum which would have to be done by a consumer. On television, the Chancellor maintained that associability would be easier under the £-cent system than under the 10s.-cent system. He asked Mr. Ramage whether he did not think that translating 13s. 7d. in his way would be easier to understand than in the way which would work under the 10s.-cent system.
The Halsbury Committee was absolutely plain on this point. It said:
…the 'associability' advantages of the 10s.-cent system over the £-cent-½ system—easier translation of amounts and easier coin recognition and manipulation—coupled with the absence of vulgar fractions, would facilitate the immediate change to decimal currency working for the ordinary shopper and for the retail and transport undertakings which would have to bear the main burdens of the change-over.
It is because of the difficulties consumers will face with the changeover to decimal currency, which were extremely well dealt with by Lady Elliot in her correspondence with the Chancellor, that I beg the Chief Secretary, on behalf of the Government, to think again and make the decision not in favour of the £, for spurious reasons of its international character, but in favour of the 10s.-cent system, which would be vastly more favourable to the people of this country.

4.40 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I, too, am very grateful to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for raising this important matter, for it gives me an opportunity to remove certain misunderstandings and reiterate the Government's point of view.
The hon. Gentleman asked, first, if I would confirm that the decimal currency is subject to Parliament's approval. It is very much so, and of course he recognises that the White Paper says so in precisely those words:
The Government will be bringing forward for the approval of Parliament a Bill to establish the new decimal currency units and to take certain other necessary powers.

Mr. G. Campbell: I referred to that, but I was asking whether there would be a full debate.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me a chance to reply to each of his points in turn, I shall cone to them. I cannot answer them all in one sentence. I was going on to say hat he asked me about a debate. The Government have considered a debate, and these matters are being considered through the usual channels. I thought that that had been brought to the hon. Gentleman's attention, but can understand his reasons for asking me about it now.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me if I would state that no action had been taken, and could undertake that no action would be taken, to prejudge the issue between the two systems. Certainly no instructions have been given to machine companies or anything like that. The Government's purpose in making the statement was to give guidance, so that those members of the community who are interested in making early preparations, because they require plenty of time, will be able to assess the situation.
Although I have listened very carefully to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), and although the Government are, naturally, listening very carefully to the debate and discussion which we are glad is now going on in many learned quarters, no new argument has emerged which the Government did not have in mind when the White Paper was issued, and when the decision was made. The Government see no reason to alter their views on the essential problem of the kind of monetary unit and the number of coins.
Both hon. Gentlemen made clear that the debate is not about decimalisation. That is a matter which we are all glad to say has met with general approval, and I think that the House will agree that the date, February, 1971, is wise, giving plenty of time for people to make the adjustment.
The question under consideration is which of the two runners—there are only two—is the better, and, for reasons which I hope the House will listen to, the Government are convinced that the £ system

is the better. Perhaps it would be acceptable shorthand to refer to it in future as the £ system, as opposed to the £-cent-½system.
I am reminded that I was discourteous to the House in not asking permission, immediately on rising, to speak a second time because this is the second Adjournment debate to which I am replying. I apologise for that omission.
The arguments for the £ system are very solid. It does not help the 10s. case which is also very good—nobody argues that this is a black and white issue—to under-state the arguments for the £, or to put them in their wrong context. Of course, there was division in the Halsbury Committee. There has been division in a good many well-informed bodies.
The majority of the Halsbury Committee came down in favour of this system for reasons which the Government accept, but which we would put in a slightly different order of priority. The Government would regard the domestic arguments as having been slightly understated by the Halsbury Committee and the international arguments as having been slightly overstated. But the same total weight of argument is there, and the Government are satisfied that this is the right decision.
The House must recognise that we have had the £ for a very long time. Everybody inside and outside this country knows of the £.

Mr. Lubbock: A good conservative argument.

Mr. Diamond: Yes, a good conservative argument.
There is no reason to put people to a lot of trouble unnecessarily. There is no reason for disturbing people unnecessarily. It is not wise for a Government to do that when there is no advantage in it. Those who seek to upset the £ have the onus on them to demonstrate that another system is better and that there is a good reason for it.

Mr. Lubbock: rose—

Mr. Diamond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get himself too worked up so near Christmas.
This is a very good reason which people are inclined to overlook. The £


is of great importance, and it is of tremendous psychological importance.
The interesting thing about both the recent cases in which there was a change from pounds, shillings and pence to decimalisation in a 10s. unit, in South Africa and Australia, is that there is solid evidence—evidence given to Select Committees and other evidence of that kind—to demonstrate that people still think in terms of the £, and advertisements are made in terms of the £ for items involving the sale of goods at so many £s per item.

Mr. Lubbock: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of something on the ground that people are used to it, would not he admit that people have become fairly accustomed to the 6d. piece and the half-crown, both of which are to disappear?

Mr. Diamond: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that, because he will realise immediately that neither of the coins which he mentioned is anything like as important as the stable anchor On which people base their monetary thinking and calculations, namely the £. The £ is the thing which matters.
In our present system, there are only two units—the £ and the penny. The rest is a combination of the penny or multipliers of the £. The £ is the unit on which money is calculated. People receive their wages in terms of the £plus some smaller denominations. Everybody abroad thinks about our currency in terms of the £. Countries abroad which deal with one another of whom we have no knowledge reckon in terms of the £. The £ is a very solid, important, existing, built-in, accepted idea, and there must be a very solid argument put forward before we uproot it.
I come now to the other major arguments, all of which support the £. There are not many, but they are very solid indeed. The two following arguments I would not put in order of priority. I mention them as being of equal importance. The first is our past. Again, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn will accuse me of being conservative. I can understand that when the arguments are solid. We have had only a short debate. All of us would have wished to have

further time in which to develop these important matters. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn for providing us with this opportunity of debating the matter even shortly. I did my best to increase the time available for this debate by helping on a previous Adjournment debate.
All the existing records would be, I will not say wrecked, but of considerably less value if we were to change to a 10s. system. All the existing records would be of full value for us in future, for comparative purposes and for other purposes when we need to look back at the records, if we stay on the £. If we were to move from the £, all the existing records and accounts which are extremely valuable to all of us—businesses, business men and organizations—would be invalidated and there would be great trouble in seeing how the situation compared with the previous situation. If we hang on to the £, all the records will be of considerable value. I shall not get much further if every hon. Member wants to intervene.

Mr. Tilney: It is necessary to multiply by two, and that is easy enough.

Mr. Diamond: Having to multiply by two is what it is all about. The hon. Member confirms what I am saying. Every figure would be wrong, no figure would mean what it says, whereas all the existing records would otherwise be valid by continuing in the £.
Then I come to the argument of the heavy unit. It is a very solid argument. The hon. Gentleman either misunderstood or put it out of context for the purpose of his argument and his debate. It cannot be denied that the heavy unit results in greater efficiency in the sense that one is dealing with smaller rather than larger numbers.
With a larger unit, the average article is in smaller numbers than otherwise would be the case. It would be precisely half the size in the present example. It would be much more efficient for all the purposes that go with this, including ease of calculation and ease of matching.
The hon. Member said that the Chancellor should count not in terms of 1,000 years, but in terms of only 200 years. It is the same argument. It must be very lasting indeed. Nobody would claim to


look precisely at what the difference would be in 300 as opposed to 200 years. It must be lasting, and one has to realise that the importance of small units gets less as time goes by, not mainly because of inflation, although that is an element in it, but mainly because, as income increases, as gross national product increases and as the things one buys and consumes become more and more expensive, the money item becomes larger, the smaller figure become less useful and it would be necessary to have tens, twenties, thirties and forties where otherwise, in course of time, one would have singles of a monetary unit.
This has nothing whatever to do with inflation, although when looking at the past one recognises that inflation has its effect. Although every Government does what it can to keep inflation in check, that has happened and one draws whatever conclusion one wishes to draw from it. The major point is that it is lasting, not because of that element, but because of the increasing prosperity of the nation and the importance, therefore, of a larger unit.
I have been asked about the new half-penny. I do not say that it will disappear. The hon. Member may say that this is an argument against the £. those who support the £ say that it will disappear, but the Government do not. The Government say that this is the smallest unit in the £ system. It is exactly the same value as the smallest unit in the 10s. system, and there is no difficulty in coping with the half.
Every housewife—everybody—is used to halfpennies. There is no problem about machines—we have been assured of this by machine manufacturers—by adding on 0·5 and the third decimal place. There is no reason why the half-penny should disappear. In fact, by the very fact that it is there, it is a cushion against increasing prices.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the Government are not claiming that this coin will disappear. Paragraph 16 of the White Paper states, however, that
The £ system will need a half cent (new halfpenny) coin but, with growing prosperity, this coin will eventually disappear.

Mr. Diamond: Eventually—that is the point. I have already stated the argu-

ment that in course of time, with increasing prosperity and the greater value in terms of money in terms of the things we buy, the smaller value unit becomes less and less important and gradually will drop out, as the farthing did and would have done with or without inflation. It is the result of increasing prosperity more than inflation.
The argument of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was that this halfpenny would disappear overnight, or something like that. I gather that that, virtually, was what he said—a very short period.

Mr. G. Campbell: What I was saying was that the argument put in favour of the fraction was that it would soon or eventually disappear.

Mr. Diamond: I am glad we have cleared that up. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say—I think that he will perhaps find he did say—that the argument being put by the supporters of the £ was that the ½d. would soon disappear. I am saying it will not.
It is a benefit of quite the opposite kind, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Behington (Mr. Brooks) for drawing attention to the fact that the White Paper makes it absolutely clear. The logic of this argument makes it absolutely clear that what we are contemplating is that there will be no reason for the ½d. as a result of rising prosperity.
These are, I think, very solid arguments indeed. Then there is, in addition, the international case, and I do want to put this in perspective. I hope I may read—I shall be as quick as possible—some part of the White Paper dealing with the international case, because the Government have put it absolutely fairly and it is continually coming back to us in these debates. Paragraph 30, on page 9, sets out the various benefits for maintaining the £ so far as the world is concerned. It refers to one-third of the world's international trade as settled in sterling. One-third of the world's trade is an enormous amount of trade.
Rather more than one-half of this covers transactions in trade between third countries—third countries we are not concerned with at all. They all support sterling; they also support the £. Of course. That is what their records are in. They are not asking for a change. It is


of no interest to them that there should be a change. They want their records to continue as before—and why should there be a change from the £ unless there are good reasons for it? On the contrary.
No hon. Gentleman was talking to me of the number of bodies supporting the 10s. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we know debate is going on about it. We are glad that public opinion is expressed in that debate. I can assure him that the Government are happy—I will not say more than that—that the support for the £ is very solid. It is very widespread. And, of course, because of this, because we make a change of this kind, as is usually the case, those who are opposed are the most vociferous, and those who support are silent in their support.
Then the argument for the international case refers to the earnings of invisible income which depends to some extent on the continuation of the pound as an international unit. Only in paragraph 32 does it touch at all on the fourth point which the hon. Gentleman put as a main point. It says:
There is no doubt that a change in the major unit will inconvenience a lot of sterling users who are not concerned with the domestic arguments for decimalisation. Equally it would be idle to claim that a change could benefit the international standing sterling; if there were any effect at all it might prove to be an adverse one.
So there is a vast number of solid arguments for the international case, and

I repeat that the international case is a very solid one indeed. I have given what, in my view, are four very solid reasons why the pound should be the unit. The other arguments balance themselves out. The transitional arguments balance themselves out; the machine argument balances itself out—there being advantages to some and disadvantages to others; the 10s. argument, in my view, balances itself out.
This I will give to the hon. Gentleman—gladly: that the transitional period for the pound will take about two to three months for every housewife to become accustomed; the transitional period for the 10s. will take about one month—that is on the best information. I gladly give the extra month of temporary disturbance for a unit which has got all these advantages behind it, and which we are considering for, in the hon. Gentleman's own words, the next 200 years. I hope that the House will be similarly disposed.

Mr. G. Campbell: May I, Mr. Speaker, as the initiator of the last debate, be permitted, on behalf of the House, to wish you a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, till Tuesday, 17th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.